Universal topological quantum computers based on majorana nanowire networks

ABSTRACT

In this disclosure, example networks of coupled superconducting nanowires hosting MZMs are disclosed that can be used to realize a more powerful type of non-Abelian defect: a genon in an Ising×Ising topological state. The braiding of such genons provides the missing topological single-qubit π/8 phase gate. Combined with joint fermion parity measurements of MZMs, these operations provide a way to realize universal TQC.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/221,065, filed on Sep. 20, 2015, and entitled “Universal Topological Quantum Computers Based on Majorana Nanowire Networks”, which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.

BACKGROUND

Topological quantum computation (TQC) can be used to store and manipulate quantum information in an intrinsically fault-tolerant manner by utilizing the physics of topologically ordered phases of matter. Currently, one of the most promising platforms for a topological qubit is in terms of Majorana fermion zero modes (MZMs) in spin-orbit coupled superconducting nanowires. However, the topologically robust operations that are possible with MZMs can be efficiently simulated on a classical computer and are therefore not sufficient for realizing a universal gate set for TQC.

SUMMARY

In embodiments of the disclosed technology, an array of coupled semiconductor-superconductor nanowires with MZM edge states can be used to realize a more sophisticated type of non-Abelian defect: a genon in an Ising×Ising topological state. This leads to an implementation of the missing topologically protected π/8 phase gate and thus universal TQC based on semiconductor-superconductor nanowire technology. Detailed numerical estimates of the relevant energy scales, which lie within accessible ranges, are also disclosed.

Among the various embodiments disclosed herein is a universal topological quantum computer comprising one or more superconductor-semiconductor heterostructures configured to have a twist defect in an Ising×Ising topological state. Another disclosed embodiment is a universal topological quantum computer comprising one or more superconductor-semiconductor heterostructures configured to have holes with gapped boundaries in an Ising×Ising topological state, where Ising refers to the time-reversed conjugate of the Ising state.

The individual components for such quantum computers are also disclosed herein and comprise two-state quantum systems. For example, the disclosed embodiments further comprise a physical two-state quantum system having an effective spin-½ degree of freedom, the system being formed from two semiconductor nanowire structures having a total of four Majorana zero modes and a charging energy constraint. Another embodiment comprises a physical two-state quantum system having an effective spin-½ degree of freedom, the system being formed from two semiconductor nanowire structures using double-island quantum phase slips and having a total of four Majorana zero modes.

A variety of desirable configurations can be realized using the disclosed technology. For instance, particular embodiments comprise a universal topological quantum computer comprising one or more semiconductor-superconductor heterostructures having coupled Majorana fermion zero modes, the heterostructures being arranged and configured to realize a Kitaev honeycomb spin model and/or the Ising topological phase. The heterostructures can be formed from two semiconductor nanowire structures as described earlier.

In any of the disclosed embodiments, the Ising×Ising state, or the Ising×Ising state, can be realized by using overpasses. Further, in certain embodiments, genons are effectively braided in an Ising×Ising state without physically moving the genons.

Also disclosed herein is a method to induce topologically protected state transformations, and thus universal topological quantum computation, in an Ising×Ising state by using gapped boundaries. In particular, this method can realize a topologically protected π/8 phase gate. This is performed, for example, by measuring topological charges along various non-contractible cycles.

The foregoing and other objects, features, and advantages of the invention will become more apparent from the following detailed description, which proceeds with reference to the accompanying figures.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a schematic block diagram showing an example pair of semiconductor-superconductor nanowire structures, sometimes also referred to herein as “heterostructures”.

FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram showing the circuit model for FIG. 1.

FIG. 3. is a schematic block diagram showing a plaquette of a brick lattice comprising six effective sites.

FIG. 4 is a schematic block diagram showing another depiction of the effective brick lattice.

FIG. 5 is a schematic block diagram showing an example decorated brick lattice to realize a variant of the Kitaev model using the semiconductor-superconductor structures of FIG. 1.

FIG. 6 is a schematic block diagram showing a nodal representation of the effective lattice model of FIG. 5.

FIG. 7 is a schematic block diagram illustrating two effectively decoupled copies of the Kitaev model created with short overpasses where the vertical superconducting wires skip over one chain and couple to the next chain.

FIG. 8 is a schematic block diagram illustrating a braiding approach to realizing a π/8 phase gate.

FIG. 9 is another schematic block diagram showing a pair of A, B superconducting islands coupled together with a Josephson junction.

FIG. 10 is a schematic showing an effective circuit diagram for the pair of A, B islands in FIG. 9, indicating the capacitances and Josephson junctions.

FIG. 11 is a schematic block diagram showing another representation of FIG. 9 including further non-superconducting semiconductor wires.

FIGS. 12 and 13 are graphs plotting the energy spectra for the four lowest energy states of H⁻, as a function of the offset charge n_(off,−), for the two different values of the Majorana occupation numbers S^(z)=n_(M−)=±1.

FIG. 14 is a schematic block diagram showing two vertically coupled spins, comprising 4 superconducting islands.

FIGS. 15-22 are graphs showing analyzing the two-spin model of FIG. 14 using a numerical solution across a variety of parameters.

FIG. 23 is a schematic block diagram showing two horizontally coupled unit cells, comprising 4 spins total.

FIGS. 24-26 are plots of 16 parameters c_(abcd) available in the configuration of FIG. 23 as a function of θ for various parameter settings.

FIG. 27 is a schematic block diagram showing a two-dimensional network formed from the unit model of FIG. 1.

FIG. 28 is a schematic block diagram showing a configuration that exhibits a single effective spin.

FIG. 29 is a schematic block diagram showing a 1D chain.

FIG. 30 is a schematic block diagram showing a single plaquette of the 2D network.

FIGS. 31 and 32 are schematic block diagrams showing a second way of realizing the Ising topological order on a different lattice.

FIG. 31 is a block diagram showing that two essentially decoupled copies of the capacitance-based model can be created by using short overpasses to couple next nearest neighbor chains.

FIGS. 32 and 33 are schematic block diagrams of architectures for creating genons in the effective spin model.

FIGS. 34(A)-(D) show schematic block diagrams illustrating example measurement based braiding of genons.

FIG. 35 illustrates an example method in accordance with the disclosed technology.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION General Considerations

Disclosed below are representative embodiments of methods, apparatus, and systems for realizing a quantum computer, and in particular a universal topological quantum computer. The disclosed methods, apparatus, and systems should not be construed as limiting in any way. Instead, the present disclosure is directed toward all novel and nonobvious features and aspects of the various disclosed embodiments, alone or in various combinations and subcombinations with one another. Furthermore, any one or more features or aspects of the disclosed embodiments can be used in various combinations and subcombinations with one another. For example, one or more method acts from one embodiment can be used with one or more method acts from another embodiment and vice versa. The disclosed methods, apparatus, and systems are not limited to any specific aspect or feature or combination thereof, nor do the disclosed embodiments require that any one or more specific advantages be present or problems be solved.

Although the operations of some of the disclosed methods are described in a particular, sequential order for convenient presentation, it should be understood that this manner of description encompasses rearrangement, unless a particular ordering is required by specific language set forth below. For example, operations described sequentially may in some cases be rearranged or performed concurrently. Moreover, for the sake of simplicity, the attached figures may not show the various ways in which the disclosed methods can be used in conjunction with other methods.

Various alternatives to the examples described herein are possible. For example, some of the methods described herein can be altered by changing the ordering of the method acts described, by splitting, repeating, or omitting certain method acts, etc. The various aspects of the disclosed technology can be used in combination or separately. Different embodiments use one or more of the described innovations. Some of the innovations described herein address one or more of the problems noted in the background or elsewhere in this disclosure.

As used in this application and in the claims, the singular forms “a,” “an,” and “the” include the plural forms unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. Additionally, the term “includes” means “comprises.” Further, as used herein, the term “and/or” means any one item or combination of any items in the phrase. Still further, as used herein, the term “optimiz*” (including variations such as optimization and optimizing) refers to a choice among options under a given scope of decision, and does not imply that an optimized choice is the “best” or “optimum” choice for an expanded scope of decisions.

Introduction to the Disclosed Technology

The promise of topological quantum computation (TQC) is to encode and manipulate quantum information using topological qubits. The quantum states of a topological qubit do not couple to any local operators, forming a non-local Hilbert space, and are therefore intrinsically robust to decoherence due to coupling to an external environment. Topological qubits also support topologically protected gate operations, which allow the topological qubits to be manipulated in an intrinsically fault-tolerant fashion. One of the most promising avenues towards developing a topological qubit is in terms of Majorana fermion zero modes (MZMs) in spin-orbit coupled superconducting nanowires.

In this disclosure, example networks of coupled superconducting nanowires hosting MZMs are disclosed that can be used to realize a more powerful type of non-Abelian defect: a genon in an Ising×Ising topological state. The braiding of such genons provides the missing topological single-qubit π/8 phase gate. Combined with joint fermion parity measurements of MZMs, these operations provide a way to realize universal TQC. Further details concerning how to carry out the topological gate operations once the genons of the Ising×Ising state are created and can be braided around each other are discussed in M. Barkeshli and X.-L. Qi, Phys. Rev. X 2, 031013 (2012).

This disclosure includes the following. First, it is shown that an array of suitably coupled MZMs in nanowire systems can realize a two-dimensional phase of matter with Ising topological order (The Ising topologically ordered phase is topologically distinct from a topological (e.g., p+ip) superconductor, as the latter does not have intrinsic topological order.) This is done by showing how to engineer an effective Kitaev honeycomb spin model in a physical system of coupled Majorana nanowires, where each effective spin degree of freedom corresponds to a pair of Majorana nanowires. Several example approaches to doing this are presented, including one based on charging energies, and the other based on quantum phase slips. An analysis of the energy scales of a physical system indicates that the Ising topological order could have energy gaps on the order of a few percent of the charging energy of the Josephson junctions of the system; given present-day materials and technology, and the constraints on the required parameter regimes, the possibility of energy gaps of up to several Kelvin is estimated.

Second, it is shown how overpasses (e.g., short overpasses) between neighboring chains, which are feasible with current nanofabrication technology, can be used to create two effectively independent Ising phases, referred to as an Ising×Ising state. Changing the connectivity of the network by creating a lattice dislocation allows the creation of a genon; this effectively realizes a twist defect that couples the two layers together. Finally, the genons can be effectively braided with minimal to no physical movement of them, by tuning the effective interactions between them.

Realizing the Kitaev Model

This section begins with a disclosure of a physical realization of a Kitaev model, which can be described by the following Hamiltonian with spin-½ degrees of freedom on each site {right arrow over (r)} of a brick lattice (A π rotation about S^(z) on every other site takes Eq. (1) to the more conventional Kitaev form):

$\begin{matrix} {{H_{K} = {{\sum\limits_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}{J_{yx}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{y}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}^{x}}} + {\sum\limits_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}{J_{z}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}^{z}}} + S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R} - \hat{z}}^{z}}},} & (1) \end{matrix}$

where S_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(α) for α=x, y, z are taken to be the Pauli matrices. The unit cell of the brick lattice is taken to be two vertically separated neighboring spins; Σ_({right arrow over (R)}) is a sum over each two-spin unit cell and {right arrow over (R)} refers to the top-most spin within the unit cell.

H_(K) is most naturally solved by expressing the spins in terms of Majorana operators {tilde over (γ)}^(j) as S^(α)=i{tilde over (γ)}^(α){tilde over (γ)}^(t), together with a gauge constraint Π_(α=x,y,z,t){tilde over (γ)}^(j)=1. H_(K) can thus be rewritten as

$\begin{matrix} {{H_{K} = {{\sum\limits_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}{J_{yx}{\overset{\sim}{\gamma}}_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{y}{\overset{\sim}{\gamma}}_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}^{x}{\overset{\sim}{\gamma}}_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{t}{\overset{\sim}{\gamma}}_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}^{t}}} + {\sum\limits_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}{J_{z}{\overset{\sim}{\gamma}}_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}^{t}{\overset{\sim}{\gamma}}_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}^{z}{\overset{\sim}{\gamma}}_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R} - \hat{z}}^{y}{\overset{\sim}{\gamma}}_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R} + \hat{z}}^{x}}}}},} & (2) \end{matrix}$

where the gauge constraint has been used in writing the J_(z) term. The gauge constraint allows one to separate the Majoranas into a set of Z₂ gauge fields u_(xy)({right arrow over (R)}+{circumflex over (x)}/2)=i{tilde over (γ)}_({right arrow over (R)}) ^(x){tilde over (γ)}_({right arrow over (R)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(y) and u_(zz)({right arrow over (R)}+{circumflex over (z)}/2)=i{tilde over (γ)}_({right arrow over (R)}) ^(z){tilde over (γ)}_({right arrow over (R)}+{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z), which commute with H_(K), together with Majorana modes {tilde over (γ)}^(t) that couple to these Z₂ gauge fields. The non-Abelian Ising phase corresponds to the regime where {tilde over (γ)}^(t) forms a topological superconductor, such that the Z₂ vortices of u localize MZMs. Since the Z₂ vortices are deconfined finite-energy excitations in the Ising phase, their topological twist e^(πi/8) is well-defined and can be exploited for a topologically protected π/8 phase gate.

The Majorana solution of H_(K) indicates that it is physically realizable in a system where each spin is represented using a pair of proximity-induced superconducting nanowires with four MZMs γ^(t,x,y,z), as shown in FIG. 1.

In particular, FIG. 1 is a schematic block diagram 100 showing an example pair of semiconductor-superconductor nanowire structures, labelled as A (nanowire structure 110) and B (nanowire structure 112). The semiconductor-superconductor nanowire structures are sometimes referred to herein as “heterostructures”. The rectangular regions around the nanowire represent the superconductor “islands” and are shown as superconductors 120, 122. The black lines represent respective semiconducting nanowires in the topological superconducting phase and are shown as nanowires 130, 132. The dots (red dots) represent the MZM edge states (MZM edge states 140, 141, 142, 143, respectively).

FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram 200 showing the circuit model for FIG. 1.

FIG. 3 is a schematic block diagram 300 showing a plaquette of a brick lattice comprising six effective sites (a representative one of which is shown as structure 310). The six sites correspond to six instances of the semiconductor-superconductor nanowire structure shown in FIG. 1. The semiconductor nanowires 312, 314, 316, 318 in this example embodiment fully extend in the horizontal direction; the gray regions (e.g., between the superconducting regions, representative ones of which are shown as regions 330, 332) indicate normal (non-topological) regions of the semiconductor nanowires. The applied magnetic field can be taken to be normal to or in the plane. t_(A) and t_(B) parameterize the electron tunneling as shown. Dashed rectangle 320 indicates a unit cell of the brick lattice, each containing four superconducting islands, or two pairs of A and B-type structures, labelled 1, . . . , 4 as shown.

FIG. 4 is a schematic block diagram 400 showing another depiction of the effective brick lattice. Dashed rectangles 410, 412 outline a unit cell of the lattice and each circle (such as representative circles 420, 422, 424, 426) corresponds to a semiconductor-superconductor (heterostructure) nanowire structure shown as shown in FIG. 1.

The semiconducting wires (such as InAs or InSb wires) can be either grown or lithographically defined on 2D systems, and the superconductor thin films (such as Al, and perhaps other superconductors such as Nb and NbTiN) can now be epitaxially grown with exceptional interface qualities. Example techniques for growing semiconductor wires as can be used in embodiments of the disclosed technology are described in P. Krogstrup, N. L. B. Ziino, W. Chang, S M. Albrecht, M. H. Madsen, E. Johnson, J. Nygrd, C. M. marcus, and T. S. Jespersen, Nature Materials 14 (2015). Example techniques for lithographically defining such wires as can be used in embodiments of the disclosed technology are described in J. Shabani, M. Kjaergaard, H. J. Suominen, Y. Kim. F. Nichele, K. Pakrouski, T. Stankevic, R. M. Lutchyn, P. Krogstrup, R. Feidenhans, et al., Phys. Rev. B 93, 155402 (2016).

As is shown below, such example physical realizations of H_(K) are possible. Example embodiments for such realizations that physically implement the effective spins using the physics of charging energies are disclosed first; and subsequently, embodiments for such realizations utilizing quantum phase slips are disclosed.

In certain example embodiments, such as in the configurations shown in FIGS. 1-4, an overall charging energy for the pair of islands, each of which is controlled by a capacitance C_(g) to a gate placed at a voltage V_(g), is used to effectively generate the gauge constraint by constraining the total charge of the pair of islands. Example gates 160, 162 are illustrated in FIG. 1 The gates 160, 162 can be, for example, nearby metallic probes that may be set to a given electric potential.

For the four MZMs from each A, B nanowire pair to be coherent with each other (in a sense which will be made more precise below), it is desirable to retain some phase coherence between the neighboring islands that comprise a single effective spin. This is obtained by connecting the islands A and B with a Josephson junction, with Josephson coupling E_(J) and capacitance C_(J).

Returning to FIG. 1, Josephson junction 150 is illustrated as connecting the two islands (structures) 110, 112. Example implementations for Josephson junctions that can be used in embodiments of the disclosed technology are discussed, for instance, in Y.-J. Doh, J. A. vanDam, A. L. Roest, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, L. P. Kouwenhoven, and S. DeFranceschi, Science 309, 272 (2005).

The effective Hamiltonian describing the Majorana and phase degrees of freedom for the system in FIG. 1 can be written as

$\begin{matrix} {H_{ss} = {{\sum\limits_{{j = A},B}{H_{BdG}\left\lbrack {{\Delta_{j}^{{\phi}_{j}}},\psi_{j}^{\dagger},\psi_{j}} \right\rbrack}} - {E_{J}{\cos \left( {\phi_{A} - \varphi_{B}} \right)}} + {\frac{1}{2}{\sum\limits_{i,{j = A},B}{Q_{i}C_{ij}^{- 1}{Q_{j}.}}}}}} & (3) \end{matrix}$

Here H_(BdG) [Δ_(j)e^(iφ) ^(j) , ψ_(j) ^(†),ψ_(j)] is the BdG Hamiltonian for the nanowire on the jth island, where |Δ_(j)| is the proximity-induced superconducting gap on the jth nanowire. Q_(j)=e(−2i∂_(φj)+N_(j)−n_(offj)) is the excess charge on the jth superconducting island-nanowire combination. −i∂_(φj) represents the number of Cooper pairs on the jth superconducting island, N_(j)=∫ψ_(j) ^(†)ψ_(j) is the total number of electrons on the jth nanowire, and n_(offj) is the remaining offset charge on the jth island, which can be tuned continuously with the gate voltage V_(gj). The capacitance matrix is given by C_(ij)=(C_(g)+2C_(J))δ_(ij)−C_(J), for j=A, B.

In order to decouple the fermions ψ_(j) in H_(BdG) from the phase fluctuations φ_(j), a unitary transformation U=e^(−iΣ) ^(j=A,B) ^((N) ^(j) ^(/2−n) ^(Mj) ^(/2)φ) ^(j) : H_(ss)→UH_(ss)U^(†)=Σ_(j)H_(BdG)[Δ_(j),ψ_(j) ^(†),ψ_(j)]+H₊+H⁻, is performed with

$\begin{matrix} {{H_{-} = {{E_{C -}\left( {{- }{\partial_{\phi -}{+ \frac{n_{M} - n_{{off}, -}}{4}}}} \right)}^{2} - {E_{J}{\cos \left( \phi_{-} \right)}}}},{H_{+} = {E_{C +}\left( {N_{+}^{\prime} + \frac{n_{M} - n_{{off}, +}}{4}} \right)}^{2}},} & (4) \end{matrix}$

where φ⁻=φ_(A)−φ_(B), Σ_(C−)=4e²/(C_(g)+2C_(J)), E_(C+)=4e²/C_(g), n_(off±)=n_(offA)±n_(offB), n_(M±)=n_(MA)±n_(MB), and N₊′=−i∂_(φ+)/2. For wires A, B in the topological superconducting phase, at energies below Δ_(j), H_(BdG) creates essentially decoupled Majorana zero modes γ^(j) which affect the phase dynamics only through the occupation numbers n_(MA)=(1+iγ^(z)γ^(t))/2, n_(MB)=(1+iγ^(x)γ^(y))/2. In order to allow the MZMs to remain free except for a constraint on the total fermion parity, one can tune the gate voltages so that n_(off+)+=2m+1, where m is an integer, and n_(off−)=0. The ground state of the system is then two-fold degenerate, with N₊′=m/2, n_(M+)=1, and n_(M−)=±1. There is an energy gap on the order of E_(C+) to violating the gauge constraint by changing the total charge of the system, and, for E_(J)<E_(C−), a gap of order E_(C−) to excited states of H⁻ that are related to fluctuations of the relative phase φ⁻.

For energy scales below E_(C±), the system can therefore be described as an effective spin-½ system, with S^(z)=n_(M−)=±1. Tuning n_(off−) slightly away from zero acts like a Zeeman field for this effective spin degree of freedom, giving an effective Hamiltonian H_(eff, ss)=h_(z)S^(z), with h_(z)∝n_(off−). This is equivalent to tunneling terms between the Majorana modes γ^(t) and γ^(z). Effective Zeeman fields h_(x)S^(x), h_(y)S^(y) can also be induced by allowing electrons to tunnel between the MZMs γ^(x), γ^(t) and γ^(y), γ^(t) (see, e.g., the extended discussion in the Supplemental Description section below). It should be noted that the MZMs γ^(a) are not exactly equivalent to the {tilde over (γ)}^(a) used in Eq. 2, because the two effective spin states in this setup differ not only in the Majorana occupation numbers n_(M−), but also in the wave function of φ⁻ (see Supplemental Material). {tilde over (γ)} can be thought of as corresponding to γ, dressed with the φ⁻ degrees of freedom.

The next step is to generate the quartic Majorana couplings in Eq. 2 by coupling the different A-B island pairs together. For example, the J_(z) term in Eq. 2 essentially represents a coupling between the occupation numbers n_(M,A,{right arrow over (r)}) and n_(M,B,{circumflex over (r)}+{circumflex over (z)}) of neighboring SC islands in the lattice and can be realized using a capacitor C_(Z). This is shown in FIG. 3, where capacitors 340, 342 are shown and the labelling 1, . . . , 4 has also been introduced for the two vertically coupled islands shown in rectangle 320. For numerical optimization of energy scales, it is useful to also consider a capacitance C′_(Z) between islands 1 and 4, which is not shown explicitly in FIG. 3.

To estimate the resulting J_(z) coupling, a detailed model for two vertically coupled effective spins is considered. In one example embodiment, the model comprises four vertically separated islands (see FIG. 3), which is described by a Hamiltonian

H _(2s) =H ₁₂ +H ₃₄ +H ₁₂₃₄.  (5)

H₁₂ and H₃₄ are the Hamiltonians for the isolated units of the form of Eq. 14, while H₁₂₃₄=Σ_(σ) ₁ _(,σ) ₂ _(=±)Q_(12,σ) ₁ Q_(34,σ) ₂ A_(σ) ₁ _(σ) ₂ capacitively couples the two effective spins. As expected H₁₂₃₄ couples the differences Q_(ij,±)=Q_(i)±Q_(j) of the charges Q_(j) on the islands. A_(σ) ₁ _(σ) ₂ =¼(C₁₃ ⁻¹+σ₂C₁₄ ⁻¹+σ₁C₂₃ ⁻¹+C₂₄ ⁻¹) are related to the four-island capacitance matrix (see, e.g., the extended discussion in the Supplemental Description section below).

The term H₁₂₃₄ in Eq. 5 generates a coupling J_(z) between the effective spins 1-2 and 3-4 by coupling the charges Q_(j) on the various islands. For small coupling capacitances C_(Z), C_(Z)′, this can be estimated perturbatively. The limits of validity of the perturbative estimate can be checked by a direct numerical calculation of the spectrum of H_(2s), which have been performed and are presented in the Supplemental Description section below. An example of a suitable parameter regime is for C_(Z)=C_(Z)′=0.5C_(g), C_(J)=1.5C_(g), and E_(J)=0.45e²/C_(J). In this case, J_(z)≈0.02e²/C_(J), while the gap to all other states in the system is E_(gauge)≈10J_(z). Thus the gauge constraint is implemented effectively through a large energy penalty E_(gauge), and the system is well-described at low energies by the effective spin model (or, equivalently, the constrained Majorana model).

The J_(xy) terms in Eq. 2 involve coupling MZMs in the horizontal direction. This quartic Majorana coupling can be obtained from single electron tunneling processes between the MZMs through (normal) semiconductor wires 312, 314, 316, 318 that run horizontally, as shown in FIG. 3. The electron tunneling amplitudes t_(A) and t_(B) can also be controlled with a gate voltage. The resulting Hamiltonian for the full 2D system shown in FIGS. 3 and 4 is then

$\begin{matrix} {{H_{2D} = {{\sum\limits_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}H_{{2s},\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}} + H_{tun}}},{H_{tun} = {\sum\limits_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}\left\lbrack {{t_{A}\psi_{t,\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{\dagger}\psi_{t,{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}}} + {t_{B}\psi_{y,\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{\dagger}\psi_{x,{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}}} + {H.c.}} \right\rbrack}},} & (6) \end{matrix}$

where H_(2s,{right arrow over (R)}) is the Hamiltonian for the two-spin unit cell at {right arrow over (R)}, given by (5) above. The single electron tunnelings t_(A), t_(B) violate the gauge constraint, which is related to fermion parity of the single effective spin, and thus induce an energy penalty on the order of E_(guage). The limit where t_(A),t_(B)<<E_(guage) is considered, so that H_(tun) can be treated perturbatively around the decoupled unit cell limit. Assuming further that t_(A)<<Δ_(A), t_(B)<<Δ_(B), one can replace ψ_(α,{right arrow over (r)}), after the unitary transformation U, by the MZMs:

U ^(†)ψ_(α,{right arrow over (r)}) U=e ^(iφ) ^(j{right arrow over (r)}) ^((1−F) ^(pj,{right arrow over (r)}) ^()/2) u _({right arrow over (r)}) ^(α)γ_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(α),  (7)

where ψ_(α,{right arrow over (r)})=u_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(α)γ_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(α) is set after the unitary transformation U, the c-number u_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(α) is the wave function of the MZM, and F_(pA,{right arrow over (r)})=iγ_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(z)γ_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(t), F_(pB,{right arrow over (r)})=iγ_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(x)γ_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(y) are the fermion parities of the A and B islands of site {right arrow over (r)}. It is useful to define {tilde over (t)}_(A)=t_(A)u*_(t,{right arrow over (r)})u_(t,{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}), {tilde over (t)}_(B)=t_(B)u*_(y,{right arrow over (r)})u_(x,{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}), so that after the unitary transformation by U, H_(tun)=Σ_({right arrow over (r)})[{tilde over (t)}_(A)e^(−i(1+F) ^(p,A,{right arrow over (r)}) ^()φ) ^(A{right arrow over (r)}) ^(/2+i(1−F) ^(p,A,{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^()φ) ^(A{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(/2)γ_(t,{right arrow over (r)})γ_(t,{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)})+{tilde over (t)}_(B)e^(−i(1+F) ^(p,B,{right arrow over (r)}) ^()φ) ^(B{right arrow over (r)}) ^(/2+i(1−F) ^(p,B,{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^()φ) ^(B{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(/2)γ_(y,{right arrow over (r)})γ_(x,{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)})+H.c.]. Treating H_(tun) perturbatively around the decoupled unit cell limit, one can obtain an effective Hamiltonian

$\begin{matrix} {H_{eff} = {{{\frac{{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{A}{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{B}}{E_{gauge}}}{\sum\limits_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}{\sum\limits_{a,{b = x},y}{c_{ab}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{a}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}^{b}}}}} + {\sum\limits_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}{J_{z}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}^{z}{S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R} - \hat{z}}^{z}.}}}}} & (8) \end{matrix}$

c_(ab) are constants that depend on parameters of the model, in particular the angle θ≡Arg({tilde over (t)}_(A){tilde over (t)}*_(B)). For θ≈0, π and E_(J)≈E_(C) _(J) =e²/C_(J), it is found that c_(yx)>>c_(xx), c_(xy), c_(yy). Therefore, up to negligible corrections, one can arrive at the effective Hamiltonian (1) above, with

$J_{yx} = {{\frac{{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{A}{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{B}}{E_{gauge}}}{c_{yx}.}}$

Physically, the angle θ can be tuned by the applied magnetic flux piercing the loop defined by the tunneling paths t_(A), t_(B) and also the angle between the Zeeman field and the Rashba splitting of the wire.

In the Supplemental Description section below, detailed numerical estimates are provided for the parameters of the effective spin model. For the parameter choice C_(Z)=C_(Z)′=0.5C_(g), C_(J)=1.5C_(g), E_(J)=0.45e²/C_(J) described above, and |{tilde over (t)}_(A)|, |{tilde over (t)}_(B)|≈0.2E_(gauge)θ≈0, π, it is found that |c_(yx)|≈1.75, |c_(xy)|=0.3, c_(xx), c_(yy)≈0, and thus J_(yx)≈0.016e²/C_(J). Combined with the above estimate J_(z)≈0.02e²/C^(J), it can be seen that the energy scales J_(yx), J_(z) are on the order of a few percent of the charging energy of the Josephson junctions. For Al—InAs—Al Josephson junctions, one can achieve E_(J)≈3-4 K≈E_(C) _(J) /2, implying that J_(yx), J_(z) would have energy scales on the order of several hundred milli-Kelvin. Nb—InAs—Nb Josephson junctions would in principle be able to support energy scales on the order of 7-8 times larger, with J_(z,xy) on the order of several Kelvin, due the correspondingly larger superconducting gap Δ of Nb.

The phase diagram of Eqs. (1)-(2) contains two phases: a phase where the fermions {tilde over (γ)}_(t) form a trivial insulating phase when J_(z)>>J_(yx), and a phase where the fermions {tilde over (γ)}^(t) are gapless with a Dirac-like node when J_(z)≈J_(yx). Both phases have an Abelian topological sector associated with the Z₂ gauge fields u_(xy,z). It is possible to open a topological gap for the Dirac node, and thus realize the non-Abelian Ising phase, by breaking the effective time-reversal symmetry of (1) with a Zeeman field Σ_({right arrow over (r)})Σ_(μ=x,y,z)h_(a)S_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(a), the implementation of which was described above.

Another possible approach to inducing the non-Abelian Ising phase is to use a modified structure where each point of the brick lattice of FIG. 1 is expanded into three points, with the couplings as shown in FIG. 5. The ground state on this lattice spontaneously breaks the effective time-reversal symmetry of (1) and gaps out the Dirac nodes in the regime where J_(z)˜J_(xy) to open a topological gap on the order of J_(z)˜J_(xy).

In particular, FIG. 5 is a schematic block diagram showing a decorated brick lattice 500 to realize variant of the Kitaev model. The lattice 500 illustrating an example of a single plaquette shown made of the superconductor-semiconductor system introduced above. FIG. 6 is a schematic block diagram showing a nodal representation of the effective lattice model of FIG. 5.

In FIGS. 5 and 6, each unit cell now consists of 6 effective sites of the lattice. Representative unit cells 510 and 610 are shown in FIGS. 5 and 6. Further, and with reference to unit cell 510, capacitive couplings 520, 522, 524 are shown.

In embodiments of the disclosed system, the small perturbations h_(z), c_(xy), c_(xx), c_(yy) can be used to controllably tune the sign of the spontaneous time-reversal symmetry breaking and thus control whether the system enters the Ising phase or its time-reversed conjugate, denoted “Ising”.

Ising×Ising Phase and Genons

One example feature of embodiments of the disclosed physical system is that the vertical couplings between neighboring spins only involve capacitances (or Josephson junctions as described in the quantum phase slip based implementation below). This means that once a single copy of the model is realized, it is straightforward to realize two effectively independent copies of the model by creating overpasses (e.g., short overpasses that pass over one intermediate chain). Specifically, this can be done as shown in schematic block diagram 700 of FIG. 7 by fabricating the superconducting wires that run in the vertical direction to pass over one pair of nanowires and to couple capacitively to the next chain over in the vertical direction. Representative examples of such superconducting wires are shown as superconducting wires 710, 720.

More specifically, FIG. 7 illustrates two effectively decoupled copies of the Kitaev model created with short overpasses where the vertical superconducting wires skip over one chain and couple to the next chain. Further, in the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 7, genons 720, 722 (shown by green circles) can be created at the endpoints of a branch cut along which vertical couplings 732, 734, 736 connect the two copies of the model together. In FIG. 7, and for ease of illustration, each copy of the model (corresponding to a pair of heterostructures as in FIG. 1) is represented as a blue circle, representative ones of which are shown as 740, 742 in FIG. 7.

The Ising phase contains three topologically distinct classes of quasiparticle excitations, labelled as

, ψ, and σ. The Ising×Ising phase contains nine topologically distinct classes of quasiparticles, which are labeled as (a, b), for a, b=

, ψ, σ.

A genon, which is labeled

in the Ising×Ising phase is a defect in the capacitive couplings between vertically separated chains, associated with the endpoint of a branch cut that effectively glues the two copies to each other (see, e.g., FIG. 7) (Note that only half of a branch cut is sufficient. A full branch cut would also contain vertical couplings that skip over two chains.) This defect in the lattice configuration of the superconducting islands is not a quasiparticle excitation of the system, but rather an extrinsically imposed defect with projective non-Abelian statistics.

has quantum dimension 2, and possesses the following fusion rules (Technically, there are three topologically distinct types of genons, as

can be bound to the quasiparticles, although this

additional complication will be ignored in the present discussion.):

×

=(

,

)+(ψ,ψ)+(σ,σ).  (9)

The braiding of genons maps to Dehn twists of the Ising state on a high genus surface, which provides a topologically protected π/8 phase gate.

In the present system, the braiding of genons involves the fact that it is difficult to continuously modify the physical location of the genons to execute a braid loop in real space. Fortunately, this is not necessary, as the braiding of the genons can be implemented through a different projection-based approach, without moving the genons. To do this, and according to certain embodiments of the disclosed technology, it is possible to project the joint fusion channel of any pair of genons into either the (

,

) channel or the (ψ, ψ) channel, which can potentially be done in a variety of ways, one of which is outlined below. This is effectively a generalization of the protocol developed for 1D braiding of MZMs.

FIG. 8 is a schematic block diagram 800 illustrating an approach to realizing such a π/8 phase gate. In order to implement the π/8 phase gate, one can start with two pairs of genons, labelled 1, . . . , 4, and have the ability to braid genons 2 and 3. To do this, an ancillary pair of genons is used, labelled 5 and 6. The braiding process is then established by projecting the genons 5 and 6 onto the fusion channel b₅₆, then the genons 5 and 3 onto the fusion channel b₃₅, the genons 5 and 2 onto the fusion channel b₂₅, and finally again the genons 5 and 6 onto the fusion channel b₅₆′ (see FIG. 8) Genons can be braided without moving them by sequentially projecting different pairs of genons onto specific fusion channels, as depicted, for example, by the gray ellipses 810, 812, 814, 816 in subdiagrams (A)-(D) shown in FIG. 8. This can be implemented by tuning the interactions between the genons by decreasing the quasiparticle gap along various paths.

It is assumed here for simplicity that b₅₆=b₅₆′. If the genons 5 and 6 are created out of the vacuum, then it will in fact be natural to have b₅₆=b₅₆′=(

,

). As long as b₅₆, b₃₅, b₂₅ are Abelian, e.g., equal to either (

,

) or (ψ, ψ), then the results imply that the matrix obtained for a double braid (e.g., a full 2π exchange), is given by

$\begin{matrix} {{\left( R_{23} \right)^{2} = {^{\varphi}{{\,\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & ^{{\pi}/4} \end{pmatrix}}.}}},} & (10) \end{matrix}$

where e^(iφ) is an undetermined, non-topological phase. In other words, the state obtains a relative phase of e^(2iπ/8) if the fusion channel is (σ, σ) as compared with (

,

), or (ψ, ψ), yielding a pi/8 phase gate.

When two genons are separated by a finite distance L, the effective Hamiltonian in the degenerate subspace spanned by the genons obtains non-local Wilson loop operators:

H _(genon) =t _(ψ) W _((ψ,ψ)) +t _(σ) W _((σ,σ)) +H.c.  (11)

W(a,a) describes the exchange of a (a, a) particle between the two genons, which equivalently corresponds to a (

, a) or (a,

) particle encircling the pair of genons. t_(a)∝e^(−LΔ) ^(a) ^(/v) ^(a) , for a=ψ, σ, are the tunneling amplitudes, with Δ_(a) being the energy gap for the a quasiparticles, and v_(a) their velocity. When a (1, a) quasiparticle encircles a topological charge (b, b), it acquires a phase

_(ab)/

, where

is the modular

matrix of the Ising phase. As shown in the Supplemental Discussion section below, this implies that for purposes of this disclosure, one only needs to ensure that t_(σ)≠0 and, in the case where |t_(σ)|<|t_(ψ)|, one must have t_(ψ)<0.

The tunneling amplitudes t_(ψ), t_(σ) can be tuned physically by tuning the parameters of the model, such as the electron tunneling amplitudes t_(A), t_(B), the capacitances C_(Z), and the gate voltages V_(gj). Therefore, to tune the interactions between two desired genons, one can tune the parameters of the model in order to decrease the energy gap to the quasiparticle excitations along the path that connects them.

It is also possible to implement effectively the same physics by using instead the Ising×Ising state. In this case, the genons are replaced by holes with gapped boundaries, and the topological charge projections are implemented along various open lines that connect the different gapped boundaries. A detailed discussion of this variation is presented in the Supplemental Discussion Section below.

Quantum Phase Slip Limit

Yet another exemplary alternative architecture is also possible, if the purely capacitive coupling C_(Z) is replaced by a Josephson junction, with Josephson coupling E_(J) _(Z) and capacitance C_(Z). In this case the limit where the Josephson energies E_(J), E_(J) _(Z) are much larger than the charging energies e²C_(ij) ⁻¹ is considered, leading to a state with long range phase coherence. In the limit where the charging energies are ignored, the system has a large degeneracy due to the MZMs. A small charging energy induces quantum phase slips of the superconducting phase of the islands; the amplitude of the quantum phase slips depends on the occupation of the MZMs on the superconducting islands, thus inducing an effective Hamiltonian in the space of states spanned by the MZMs. The effective Hamiltonian takes the form: H_(2D)=H₁+H₂+H_(tun), where H₁ consists of single-island phase slips:

$\begin{matrix} {{H_{1} = {\sum\limits_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}\left( {{\zeta_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{A}{\gamma}_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{z}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{t}} + {\zeta_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{B}{\gamma}_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{x}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{y}}} \right)}},} & (12) \end{matrix}$

and H₂ consists of double island phase slips:

$\begin{matrix} {H_{2} = {{- {\sum\limits_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}{\zeta_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{AB}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{z}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{t}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{x}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{y}}}} + {\sum\limits_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}{\zeta_{Z}^{AB}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}^{x}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}^{y}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R} - \hat{z}}^{z}{\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R} - \hat{z}}^{t}.}}}}} & (13) \end{matrix}$

H_(tun) is the same as in Eqn. (6) and describes electron tunneling in the horizontal direction. The single island phase slips are modulated by the offset charge: ζ_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(j)∝ cos(πn_(off,{right arrow over (r)},j)) and can therefore be tuned to zero using the gate voltages. Double island phase slips that are not included in H₂ can be ignored in this limit, as can phase slips that involve more than two islands, as they are exponentially suppressed. Parameters are desirably selected to operate in the limit {tilde over (t)}_(A),{tilde over (t)}_(B),ζ_(Z) ^(AB)<<ζ_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(AB). In this case, ζ_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(AB) effectively imposes the gauge constraint γ_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(z)γ_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(t)γ_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(x)γ_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(y)=1 for states with energies much less than ζ_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(AB). Each site can therefore be described by a spin-½ degree of freedom. The term involving ζ_(Z) ^(AB) acts like a coupling ζ_(Z) ^(AB)S_({right arrow over (R)}) ^(z)S_({right arrow over (R)}−{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z). As before, in this limit H_(tun) can be treated perturbatively, and gives rise to the desired coupling

$\frac{{{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{A}{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{B}}}{\zeta^{AB}}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{y}{S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}^{x}.}$

Generalized Embodiments

This section describes various example general embodiments of the disclosed technology. These embodiments should not be construed as limiting, as they can be modified in arrangement and detail without departing from the principles of the disclosed technology.

One example embodiment disclosed herein is a universal topological quantum computing device comprising a plurality of semiconductor-superconductor heterostructures configured to have a twist defect in an Ising×Ising topological state.

In particular implementations, at least two of the semiconductor-superconductor heterostructures form a two-state quantum system having an effective spin-½ degree of freedom. For instance, the two-state quantum system can comprise: a first superconducting island on which a first semiconducting nanowire is located; and a second superconducting island on which a second semiconducting nanowire is located, the first superconducting island being substantially perpendicular to the second superconducting island and being coupled to one another via a Josephson junction. In some example implementations, at least one of the semiconductor-superconductor heterostructures comprises two semiconductor nanowire structures having four Majorana zero modes and a charging energy constraint. In certain examples, at least one of the semiconductor-superconductor heterostructures comprises two semiconductor nanowire structures using double-island quantum phase slips and having four Majorana zero modes.

In certain implementations, the semiconductor-superconductor heterostructures are arranged to form a two-dimensional Kitaev honeycomb spin model. In further implementations, the semiconductor-superconductor heterostructures are arranged into pairs, each pair comprising a first and a second semiconductor-superconductor heterostructure. The pairs of semiconductor-superconductor heterostructures can be arranged into a two-dimensional lattice comprising: a set of the pairs connected via a first nanowire to nearest neighboring pairs along a first dimension; a first subset of the set connected via one or more second nanowires to distant pairs along a second dimension, the one or more second nanowires forming overpasses that bypass one or more nearest neighboring pairs along the second dimension; and a second subset of the set connected via one or more third nanowires to nearest neighboring pairs along the second dimension. The one or more third nanowires can create the twist defect.

Any of these embodiments can be used to form, at least in part, a π/8 phase gate (e.g., as may be used for universal topological quantum computing)

Another embodiment disclosed herein is a universal topological quantum computer comprising: one or more semiconductor-superconductor heterostructures configured to have holes with gapped boundaries in an Ising×Ising topological state, where Ising is the time-reversed conjugate of the Ising state.

Further embodiments comprise a first superconducting island on which a first semiconducting nanowire is located; and a second superconducting island on which a second semiconducting nanowire is located, the first superconducting island being substantially perpendicular to the second superconducting island and being coupled to one another via a Josephson junction and thereby forming a pair of superconducting-semiconducting heterostructures.

These superconducting-semiconducting heterostructures can be used to form multiple two-spin or four-spin or higher-spin unit cells. Such unit cells can comprise the superconducting-semiconducting heterostructures as described herein.

In particular example implementations, the two-spin unit cells are arranged into a two-dimensional lattice comprising: a set of the pairs connected via a first nanowire to nearest neighboring pairs along a first dimension; a first subset of the set connected via one or more second nanowires to distant pairs along a second dimension, the one or more second nanowires forming overpasses that bypass one or more nearest neighboring pairs along the second dimension; and a second subset of the set connected via one or more third nanowires to nearest neighboring pairs along the second dimension. The one or more third nanowires can be used to create the twist defect.

Any of these embodiments can be used to form, at least in part, a π/8 phase gate (e.g., as may be used in a universal topological quantum computing)

FIG. 35 illustrates an example method 3500 in accordance with the disclosed technology.

At 3510, π/8 phase gate for a quantum computing device is implemented by braiding genons in an Ising×Ising state or by using gapped boundaries in an Ising×Ising topological state, where Ising is the time-reversed conjugate of the Ising state. The braiding of genons in the Ising×Ising state can be achieved without physically moving the genons in space.

In some example implementations, the braiding comprises projecting fusion channels of pairs of the genons onto an Abelian charge sector. In some examples, the π/8 phase gate comprises six genons. In further examples, the method further comprises implementing topologically robust operations in the Ising×Ising state by using gapped boundaries. In such examples, the topologically robust operations can be implemented (performed) in the Ising×Ising topological state by a sequence of topological charge projections utilizing the gapped boundaries.

Supplemental Discussion

This section includes a more detailed description of many of the embodiments introduced above. At times, the disclosures herein are repetitive of the materials presented above but are nevertheless included in the interest of completeness.

Introduction

As noted above, it is desirable to realize and manipulate Majorana fermion zero modes in spin-orbit coupled superconducting nanowires. The ground state subspace of a set of Majorana fermion zero modes realizes a non-local Hilbert space, giving rise to topologically protected ground state degeneracies and non-Abelian exchange transformations. Aside from its profound scientific significance, the pursuit of Majorana fermion zero modes is motivated in part by the possibility of utilizing them for topological quantum computation.

The non-Abelian braiding statistics and possible measurement schemes of Majorana fermion zero modes are not sufficient for realizing a fully universal, topologically protected gate set for quantum computation. In fact, the topologically protected unitary operations that are possible with Majorana zero modes correspond to the Clifford group, which can be efficiently simulated on a classical computer. Consequently, proposals for utilizing Majorana zero modes in quantum computation require interfacing them with conventional, non-topological qubits. The topological protection of the Majorana qubits allows for higher error threshold rates for the non-topological qubits through the use of magic state distillation, but the full advantage of universal topological quantum computation is unattained in such proposals.

In this disclosure, it is shown that a network of superconducting nanowires hosting Majorana zero modes, together with an array of Josephson-coupled superconducting islands, can be used to realize a more powerful type of non-Abelian defect: a genon in an Ising×Ising topological state. The braiding of such genons, in conjunction with the usual braiding of Majorana zero modes, can be utilized for fully universal TQC by providing the missing topological single-qubit π/8 phase gate. Further details about such genons and the π/8 phase gate are found in, for example, M. Barkeshli and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 81, 045323 (2010), arXiv:0909.4882; M. Barkeshli and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 84, 115121 (2011); M. Barkeshli and X.-L. Qi, Phys. Rev. X 2, 031013 (2012), arXiv:1112.3311; and M. Barkeshli, C.-M. Jian, and X.-L. Qi, Phys. Rev. B 87, 045130 (2013), arXiv:1208.4834.

This disclosure includes the following basic building blocks. First, it is shown that an array of suitably coupled Majorana zero modes in nanowire systems can realize a two-dimensional phase of matter with Ising topological order. (The Ising topologically ordered phase is topologically distinct from a p+ip superconductor, as the latter does not have intrinsic topological order.) This is done by showing how to engineer an effective Kitaev honeycomb spin model in a realistic physical system of coupled Majorana nanowires. Each effective spin degree of freedom corresponds to a pair of Majorana nanowires. In this disclosure, several example approaches are presented to doing this, including one based on charging energies and another based on quantum phase slips. An analysis of the energy scales of a physically realistic system indicates that the Ising topological order could have energy gaps on the order of a few percent of the charging energy of the Josephson junctions of the system; given present-day materials and technology, energy gaps of up to several Kelvin are estimated.

Second, it is shown how, using current nanofabrication technology, short overpasses between neighboring chains can be used to create two effectively independent Ising phases, referred to as an Ising×Ising state. Changing the connectivity of the network by creating a lattice dislocation allows the creation of a genon; this effectively realizes a twist defect that couples the two layers together. Finally, the genons can be effectively braided with minimal to no physical movement of them, by tuning the effective interactions between them.

Together, these ingredients allow the possibility of a topologically protected π/8 phase gate. The braiding and fermion-parity measurements of the non-Abelian quasiparticles in the Ising state allow the CNOT and Hadamard gate. Together, these three topologically protected operations allow for the possibility of a universal topological quantum computer (TQC).

Charging Energy Based Implementation

FIG. 9 is a schematic block diagram 900 showing an example pair of A, B superconducting islands (shown as islands 910 (“A”) and 912 (“B”)), coupled together with a Josephson junction 914, denoted by the x. The dots (red dots 920, 922, 924, 926) represent Majorana zero modes, labelled γ^(x), γ^(y), γ^(z), γ^(t). The Majorana zero modes are localized at the end of the semiconducting nanowires (930, 932), which are shown in black. As illustrated at 1010, 1012 in FIG. 10, each A (910) and B (912) island has a capacitance C_(g) to a gate voltage V_(g), which is then grounded. In particular, FIG. 10 is a schematic showing an effective circuit diagram 1000 for the pair of A, B islands, indicating the capacitances and Josephson junctions.

FIG. 11 is a schematic block diagram 1100 showing a representation of FIG. 9 where wire (grey wires) 1150, 1152 indicate normal (non-superconducting) semiconductor wire. Tuning the voltage on the semiconductor wires allows tuning the electron tunneling amplitudes t_(x) and t_(y) between the Majorana zero modes.

This section begins by describing an implementation where charging energies are the dominant energies in the system. The complexity of analysis then gradually increases, by first describing the physics of a single effective spin, then two vertically coupled spins that will form the unit cell of the Kitaev model, and subsequently the horizontal couplings that will link all of the two-spin unit cells into the full effective spin model.

Single Spin

Consider the configuration shown in FIG. 9, which comprises two superconducting islands, labelled A (910) and B (912), each of which is proximity coupled to a Majorana nanowire (shown as nanowires 930, 932, respectively). Each superconducting island is separated by a capacitance C_(g) to a gate voltage V_(g). The A and B islands are coupled together through a Josephson junction (shown as Josephson junction 914), with Josephson coupling E_(J) and junction capacitance C_(J). The effective Hamiltonian for this system is

$\begin{matrix} {H_{ss} = {{\sum\limits_{{j = A},B}{H_{BdG}\left\lbrack {{\Delta_{j}^{{\phi}_{j}}},\psi_{j}^{\dagger},\psi_{j}} \right\rbrack}} - {E_{J}{\cos \left( {\phi_{A} - \phi_{B}} \right)}} + {\frac{1}{2}{\sum\limits_{i,{j = A},B}{Q_{i}C_{ij}^{- 1}{Q_{j}.}}}}}} & (14) \end{matrix}$

Here, φ_(j) for j=A, B is the superconducting phase on the A and B islands, H_(BdG)[Δ_(j)e^(iφ) ^(j) , ψ_(j) ^(†), ψ_(j)] is the BdG Hamiltonian for the nanowire on the jth island, where |Δ_(j)| is the proximity-induced superconducting gap on the jth nanowire. Q_(j) is the excess charge on the jth superconducting island-nanowire combination; it can be written as:

Q _(j) =e(−2i∂ _(φj) +N _(j) −n _(offj)),  (15)

where −i∂_(φj) represents the number of Cooper pairs on the jth superconducting island, N_(j)=∫ψ_(j) ^(†)ψ_(j) is the total number of electrons on the jth nanowire, and n_(offj) is the remaining offset charge on the jth island, which can be tuned continuously with the gate voltage V_(g).

The capacitance matrix is given by

$\begin{matrix} {C = \begin{pmatrix} {C_{g} + C_{J}} & {- C_{J}} \\ {- C_{J}} & {C_{g} + C_{J}} \end{pmatrix}} & (16) \end{matrix}$

The charging energy term can be rewritten in terms of the total and relative charges on the A and B islands:

$\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {{\frac{1}{2}{\sum\limits_{i,{j = A},B}^{\;}\; {Q_{i}C_{ij}^{- 1}Q_{j}}}} = {{\frac{1}{4C_{g}}\left( {Q_{A} + Q_{B}} \right)^{2}} +}} \\ {{\frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{C_{g} + {2C_{j}}}\left( {Q_{A} - Q_{B}} \right)^{2}}} \\ {{= {{\frac{e^{2}}{C_{g}}\left( {i{\partial_{\phi \; A}{- i}}{{\partial_{\phi \; B}{+ \left( {N_{+} - n_{{off} +}} \right)}}/2}} \right)^{2}} +}}\;} \\ {{\frac{e^{2}}{C_{g} + {2C_{j}}}\left( {{- i}{\partial_{\phi \; A}{+ i}}{\partial_{\phi \; B} +}} \right.}} \\ {\left. {\left( {N_{-} - n_{{off} -}} \right)/2} \right)^{2},} \end{matrix} & (17) \end{matrix}$

where

N _(±) =N _(A) ±N _(B),

n _(off±) =n _(offA) ±n _(offB).  (18)

The BdG Hamiltonian for the nanowire is given by

$\begin{matrix} {{{H_{BdG}\left\lbrack {{\Delta }^{\phi},\psi^{\dagger},\psi} \right)} = {\int_{0}^{L}{{x\left\lbrack {{{\psi^{\dagger}(x)}\mspace{14mu} \left( {{{- \frac{1}{2m^{*}}}{\partial_{x}^{2}\; {- \mu}}} + {i\; {\alpha\sigma}_{y}{\partial_{x}{+ g}}\; \mu_{B}{\overset{->}{B} \cdot \overset{->}{\sigma}}}} \right)\mspace{14mu} {\psi (x)}} + \left( {{\Delta }^{\phi},{{\psi_{\uparrow}^{\dagger}\psi_{}^{\dagger}} + {H.c.}}} \right)} \right\rbrack}}}},} & (19) \\ {{\; \mspace{79mu}}{{{where}\mspace{14mu} \psi} = {\begin{pmatrix} \psi_{\uparrow} \\ \psi_{} \end{pmatrix}.}}} & \; \end{matrix}$

Here x is taken to be the coordinate along the wire and L is the length of the wire. α is the Rasha spin-orbit coupling, μ is the chemical potential, and m* is the effective mass of the electrons in the nanowire, {right arrow over (B)} is the magnetic field and gμ_(B)|B| is the Zeeman energy.

It is now useful to perform a unitary transformation U=e^(−iΣ) ^(j=A,B) ^((N) ^(j) ^(/2−n) ^(Mj) ^(/2)φ) ^(j) in order to decouple the phase φ_(j) from the fermions ψ_(j) in H_(BdG). Here, n_(Mj)=0, 1 is the occupation number of the pair of Majorana zero modes on wire j. It is given in terms of the Majorana zero modes as

n _(MA)=(1+iγ ^(z)γ^(t))/2,

n _(MB)=(1+iγ ^(x)γ^(y))/2.  (20)

Under this transformation, the charge Q_(j) transforms as:

Q _(j) ′=U ^(†) Q _(j) U=e(−2i∂ _(φj) +n _(Mj) −n _(offj)).  (21)

Thus, taking H_(ss)→U^(†)H_(ss)U, one obtains

$\begin{matrix} {{{H_{ss}^{\prime} = {{U^{\dagger}H_{ss}U} = {{\sum\limits_{j}^{\;}\; {H_{BdG}\left\lbrack {\Delta_{j},\psi_{j}^{\dagger},\psi_{j}} \right\rbrack}} + H_{+} + H_{-}}}},{H_{+} = {{+ \frac{4e^{2}}{C_{g}}}\left( {{- i}{\partial_{\phi \; +}{+ \frac{{n_{M}}_{+} - n_{{off}, +}}{4}}}} \right)^{2}}}}H_{-} = {{\frac{4e^{2}}{C_{g} + {2C_{J}}}\left( {{- i}{\partial_{\phi \; -}{+ \frac{n_{M -} - n_{{off}, -}}{4}}}} \right)^{2}} - {E_{J}\; {{\cos \left( \phi_{-} \right)}.}}}} & (22) \end{matrix}$

Here, the following combinations are defined:

n _(M±) =n _(MA) ±n _(MB),

φ_(±)=φ_(A)±φ_(B),

∂_(φ±)=½(∂_(φA)±∂_(φB)).  (23)

With this definition,

[i∂ _(φ) _(ρ) (x),φ_(ρ′)(x′)]=iδ _(ρρ′)δ(x−x′), ρ,ρ′=±  (24)

It is also useful to define

N _(j) ′=−i∂φ _(j) , j=A,B

N ₊′=(N _(A) ′+N _(B)′)/2

Q _(±) ′=Q _(A) ′±Q _(B)′.  (25)

With these definitions, one sees that the compactification of φ₊, φ⁻ is:

(φ₊,φ⁻)˜(φ₊+2π,φ⁻+2π)˜(φ₊+2π,φ⁻−2π).  (26)

While φ₊ and φ⁻ are formally decoupled in the Hamiltonian, they are coupled through their boundary conditions. The ground state of H_(ss)′, can now be written as

½∫_(−2π) ^(2π) dφ ₊ dφ ⁻ψ_(n) _(MA) _(,n) _(MB) (φ₊,φ⁻)|φ₊,φ⁻ ,n _(MA) ,n _(MB)

   (27)

Here, |n_(MA), r_(MB)

is the state of the Majorana zero modes, and |φ₊, φ⁻

is the state for the phase degrees of freedom. Importantly, the wave function of φ₊, φ⁻ itself does depend on the values of n_(MA), n_(MB). Since the Hamiltonians for H₊ and H⁻ are decoupled, one can immediately write the ground state wave function for φ₊, φ⁻:

$\begin{matrix} {{{\psi_{n_{MA},n_{MB}}\left( {\phi_{+},\phi_{-}} \right)} = {\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}^{{\; N_{+}^{\prime}\phi} +}{f_{n_{M -}}\left( \phi_{-} \right)}}},} & (28) \end{matrix}$

where ƒ_(n) _(M−) (φ⁻) is the ground state wave function for H⁻, which is peaked at φ⁻=0. Because of the compactification conditions on φ_(±), one sees that if N₊′=(N_(A)′+N_(B)′)/2 is integer (half-integer), then ƒ_(n) _(M−) (φ⁻) is periodic (antiperiodic) in φ⁻→φ⁻+2π.

For energies much less than the proximity-induced gap Δ, one can ignore the excited single particle states associated with H_(BdG), and the system can be described by the following effective Hamiltonian:

$\begin{matrix} {H_{eff} = {{\frac{4e^{2}}{C_{g}}\left( {N_{+}^{\prime} + \frac{n_{M +} - n_{{off} +}}{4}} \right)^{2}} + {\frac{4e^{2}}{C_{g} + {2C_{J}}}\left( {{- i}{\partial_{\phi \; -}{+ \frac{{n_{M}}_{-} - n_{{off}, -}}{4}}}} \right)^{2}} - {E_{J}\; {\cos \left( \phi_{-} \right)}}}} & (29) \end{matrix}$

Now define:

$\begin{matrix} {{E_{C +} = \frac{4e^{2}}{C_{g}}},{E_{C -} = {\frac{4e^{2}}{C_{g} + {2C_{J}}}.}}} & (30) \end{matrix}$

One sees that the effect of H₊ is to fix the total charge N₊′ on the pair of A, B islands to a fixed value, and gives an energy cost of E_(C+) to increase the charge by one unit. If one sets

n _(off+)=2m+1, mε

  (31)

then the ground state of the system will be given by

N ₊ ′=m/2, n _(M+)=1.  (32)

Therefore, the system will have two lowest energy states, associated with n_(M−)=±1. Thus one can define an effective spin degree of freedom:

S ^(z) ≡n _(M−)=±1.  (33)

These two states can be denoted as |S^(z)

:

$\begin{matrix} {{{{{{S^{z}\rangle} \propto {\int_{0}^{2\pi}\ {{\phi_{+}}{\phi_{-}}{f_{S^{z}}\left( \phi_{-} \right)}}}}\phi_{+}},\phi_{-},{n_{MA} = \frac{1 + S^{z}}{2}},{n_{MB} = \frac{1 + S^{z}}{2}}}\rangle},} & (34) \end{matrix}$

where N₊′=m/2=0 is chosen for simplicity. Note that |S^(z)=±1

differ both in the value of n_(M−)=± and also the wave function ƒ_(n) _(M−) (φ⁻). For future reference, it will also be useful to define the state

$\; \begin{matrix} {{{{{{{\rangle} \propto {\int_{0}^{2\pi}\ {{\phi_{+}}{\phi_{-}}{f_{- S^{z}}\left( \phi_{-} \right)}}}}\phi_{+}}, \phi_{-}, {n_{MA} = \frac{1 + S^{z}}{2}}, {{n_{MB}{\quad\quad}} =}}\quad}{\quad\frac{1 - S^{z}}{2}\rangle}},} & (35) \end{matrix}$

which has the opposite wave function ƒ_(−S) _(z) (φ⁻) as compared with |S^(z)

.

The effective Hamiltonian in the two-dimensional space |S^(z)=±1

is given (up to an overall constant) by

H _(eff) =h _(z) S ^(z).  (36)

The value of h_(z) depends on parameters in H_(eff), as described below.

Numerical Solution

The Hamiltonian H_(ss)′=H_(BdG)+H₊+H⁻ (see Eq. (22)). The three terms, H_(BdG), H₊, H⁻ commute with each other and can be separately solved. As discussed above, H_(BdG) is gapped for energies below Δ, aside from the zero energy states arising from the Majorana zero modes, while H₊ has a gap of E_(C+). It is useful to solve H⁻ numerically, for the different Majorana occupation numbers.

FIG. 12 and FIG. 13 are graphs 1200, 1300, respectively, plotting the energy spectra for the four lowest energy states of H⁻, as a function of the offset charge n_(off,−), for the two different values of the Majorana occupation numbers S^(z)=n_(M−)=±1. To connect with some standard notation in the literature for the well-known Hamiltonian H⁻, it will be useful to define

$\begin{matrix} {E_{C} = {{E_{C -}/4} = {\frac{e^{2}}{C_{g} + {2C_{J}}}.}}} & (37) \end{matrix}$

One can see that for energies much smaller than E_(C), the system simply consists of the two states |S^(z)=±1

. These are degenerate when n_(off−)=0, and acquire a small splitting when n_(off−)≠0.

More specifically, FIG. 12 is a plot of energy spectrum of H⁻, in units of 4E_(C). In the figure, E_(J)=0. Green (1210) and red (1212) curves are the ground state and the first excited state energies, respectively, for the case S^(z)=n_(M−)=1, as a function of the offset charge n_(off−). Blue (1214) and yellow (1216) curves are the ground state and first excited energies, respectively, for the case S^(z)=n_(M−)=−1. One can see that at n_(off−)=0, there is a degeneracy between S^(z)=±1, with a gap of order E_(C) to all other states. Non-zero n_(off−) acts like a Zeeman field that splits the energies of the two spin states.

FIG. 13 is the same plot as in FIG. 12, but for E_(J)=0.2(4E_(C)).

Analytical Solution

The Hamiltonian H⁻ can also be fully solved analytically through the use of Mathieu functions.

Here, this solution is provided for reference. In particular:

h _(z) =E _(c)(a _(v+)(−E _(J)/2E _(C))−a _(v−)(−E _(J)/2E _(C)))/2  (38)

where a_(v)(q) is Mathieu's characteristic value, and

v _(±)=2[−n _(g±) +k(0,n _(g)±)],  (39)

$\begin{matrix} {{n_{g \pm} = {{\left( {{\pm 1} - n_{{off} -}} \right)/4} + \frac{m\; {mod}\; 2}{2}}},{{k\left( {0,n_{g \pm}} \right)} = {{{int}\left( n_{g \pm} \right)}{\sum\limits_{l = {\pm 1}}^{\;}\; {\left( {{{int}\left( {{2n_{g \pm}} + {l/2}} \right)}\; {mod}\; 2} \right).}}}}} & (40) \end{matrix}$

int(x) rounds x to the nearest integer. The average charge Q_(B)′ on the B island is given by:

$\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {{\langle{S^{z}{Q_{B}^{\prime}}S^{z}}\rangle} = {{- \frac{1}{2}}{\langle{S^{z}{Q_{-}^{\prime}}S^{z}}\rangle}}} \\ {= {{- e}{\langle{S^{z}{{{- 2}i{{\partial_{\phi -}{+ \left( {S^{z} - n_{{off}, -}} \right)}}/2}}}S^{z}}\rangle}}} \\ {= {\frac{e}{E_{C}}\frac{\langle{S^{z}{{\partial H_{ss}^{\prime}}}S^{z}}\rangle}{\partial n_{{off} -}}}} \\ {= {S^{z}\frac{e}{E_{C}}{\frac{\partial h_{z}}{\partial n_{{off} -}}.}}} \end{matrix} & (41) \end{matrix}$

Evaluating the partial derivative:

$\begin{matrix} {{\frac{\partial h_{z}}{\partial n_{{off} -}} = {\frac{E_{c}}{2}\left( {{\alpha_{v +}^{\prime}\left( {{{- E_{J}}/2}E_{C}} \right)} - {\alpha_{v -}^{\prime}\left( {{{- E_{J}}/2}E_{C}} \right)}} \right)}},} & (42) \end{matrix}$

where

$\begin{matrix} {{a_{v}^{\prime}(x)} \equiv {\frac{\partial{a_{v}(x)}}{\partial v}.}} & (43) \end{matrix}$

Note it has been assumed that ∂k/∂n_(g±)=0, which is true except for certain fine-tuned values of n_(g±).

Effective S^(x) and S^(y) Terms

Above, it was shown that tuning n_(off−) away from zero effectively acts like a Zeeman field in the S^(z) direction. Zeeman fields in the S^(x) and S^(y) direction can also be generated, by allowing electron tunneling, with amplitude t_(x) and t_(y), through the semiconducting wires as shown in FIG. 11. Consider the following electron tunneling perturbations to H_(ss):

δH=t _(x)ψ_(x) ^(†)ψ_(t) +t _(y)ψ_(y) ^(†)ψ_(t) +H.c.  (44)

After the unitary transformation U, δH changes:

δH′=(U ^(†) δHU=t _(x)(ψ_(x)′)^(†)ψ_(t) ′+t _(y)(ψ_(y)′)^(†)ψ_(t) ′+H.c.,  (45)

where

ψ_(x) ′=U ^(†)ψ_(x) U=e ^(iφ) ^(B) ^((1−F) ^(pB) ^()/2)ψ_(x),

ψ_(y) ′=U ^(†)ψ_(y) U=e ^(iφ) ^(B) ^((1−F) ^(pB) ^()/2)ψ_(y),

ψ_(t) ′=U ^(†)ψ_(t) U=e ^(iφ) ^(A) ^((1−F) ^(pA) ^()/2)ψ_(t),  (46)

where

F _(pA) =iγ ^(z)γ^(t),

F _(pB) =iγ ^(x)γ^(y)  (47)

are the fermion parities of the A and B islands, respectively. Assuming the regime

t _(x) ,t _(y)<<Δ,  (48)

where Δ is the superconductivity-induced proximity gap in the semiconducting nanowire, one can write the electron operators at low energies in terms of the Majorana zero modes:

ψ_(α) =u _(α)γ^(α),  (49)

where α=x, y, z, t, and u_(α) are complex numbers (whose magnitude is order unity) that depend on microscopic details. Thus, the following can be obtained:

δH′=t _(x) u _(x) *u _(t)γ^(x) e ^(−iφ) ^(B) ^((1−F) ^(pB) ^(/2+iφ) ^(A) ^((1−F) ^(pA) ^()/2)γ^(t) +t _(y) u _(y) *u _(t)γ^(y) e ^(−iφ) ^(B) ^((1−F) ^(pB) ^()/2+iφ) ^(A) ^((1−F) ^(pA) ^()/2)γ^(t) +H.c.  (50)

Recall that n_(M+)=1, and that n_(MA)=(1+F_(pA))/2, n_(MB)=(1+F_(pB))/2, which implies that

F _(pA) +F _(pB)=0.  (51)

It is useful to define

{tilde over (t)} _(x) =t _(x) u _(x) *u _(t)

{tilde over (t)} _(y) =t _(y) u _(y) *u _(t)  (52)

Thus, one gets

$\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {{\delta \; H^{\prime}} = {{{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{x}^{{{- {{\phi}_{B}{({1 - F_{pA}})}}}/2} + {{{\phi}_{A}{({1 - F_{pA}})}}/2}}\gamma^{x}\gamma^{t}} +}} \\ {{{{{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{y}^{{{- {{\phi}_{B}{({1 - F_{pA}})}}}/2} + {{{\phi}_{A}{({1 - F_{pA}})}}/2}}\gamma^{y}\gamma^{t}} + {H.c.}},}} \\ {{= {{{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{x}^{{{\phi}_{-}{({1 - F_{pA}})}}/^{2}}\gamma^{x}\gamma^{t}} + {{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{y}^{{{\phi}_{-}{({1 - F_{pA}})}}/2}\gamma^{y}\gamma^{t}} + {H.c.}}},} \end{matrix} & (53) \end{matrix}$

where γ^(x), γ^(y) are also commuted through the exponential term. Note further that S^(z)=n_(M−)=n_(MA)−n_(MB)=(F_(pA)−F_(pB))/2=F_(pA). The above can then be rewritten as

$\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {{{\delta \; H^{\prime}} = {{\left( {\frac{1 + S^{z}}{2} + {\frac{1 - S^{z}}{2}^{{\phi}_{-}}}} \right)\left( {{{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{x}\gamma^{x}\gamma^{t}} + {{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{y}\gamma^{y}\gamma^{t}}} \right)} + {H.c.}}},} \\ {{= {{\left( {\frac{1 + S^{z}}{2} + {\frac{1 - S^{z}}{2}^{{\phi}_{-}}}} \right)\left( {{{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{x}\gamma^{x}\gamma^{t}} + {{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{y}\gamma^{y}\gamma^{t}}} \right)} + {H.c.}}},} \\ {= {{\; \gamma^{x}\gamma^{t}{{Im}\left( {{{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{x}\left( {1 + ^{{\phi}_{-}}} \right)} - {{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{y}\left( {1 - ^{{\phi}_{-}}} \right)}} \right)}} +}} \\ {{\; \gamma^{y}\gamma^{t}{{Im}\left( {{{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{y}\left( {1 + ^{{\phi}_{-}}} \right)} - {{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{x}\left( {1 - ^{{\phi}_{-}}} \right)}} \right)}}} \end{matrix} & (54) \end{matrix}$

Thus,

δH′=a _(x) iγ ^(x)γ^(t) +a _(y) iγ ^(y)γ^(t),  (55)

with

a _(x)=Im({tilde over (t)} _(x)(1+e ^(iφ) ⁻ )−{tilde over (t)} _(y)(1−e ^(iφ) ⁻ ))

a _(y)=Im({tilde over (t)} _(y)(1+e ^(iφ) ⁻ )−{tilde over (t)} _(x)(1−e ^(iφ) ⁻ ))  (56)

For t_(x), t_(y)<<E_(C), one can treat δH′ perturbatively around H_(ss). Thus, one can get an effective Hamiltonian H_(eff), such that

$\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {{\langle{m{H_{eff}}n}\rangle} = {\langle\left. m \middle| {H_{ss} + {\delta \; H^{\prime}}} \middle| n \right.\rangle}} \\ {{= {{\delta_{mn}E_{m}} + {\langle{m{{\delta \; H^{\prime}}}n}\rangle}}},} \end{matrix} & (57) \end{matrix}$

where |m

are the normalized eigenstates of the unperturbed Hamiltonian H_(ss). Then one can write the effective Hamiltonian in the low energy spin space as

$\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {H_{eff} = {{\sum\limits_{m}{E_{m}{m\rangle}{\langle m}}} + {\sum\limits_{m,n}{{\langle{m{{\delta \; H^{\prime}}}n}\rangle}{m\rangle}{\langle n}}}}} \\ {{= {{h_{z}S^{z}} + {h_{x}S^{x}} + {h_{y}S^{y}}}},} \end{matrix} & (58) \end{matrix}$

where

h _(z) =E _(S) _(z) ₌₁ −E _(S) _(z) ⁼⁻¹ +

S ^(z)=1|δH′|S ^(z)=1

−

S ^(z)=−1|δH′|S ^(z)=−1

,

h _(x)=Re[

S ^(z)=−1|δH′|S ^(z)=1

],

h _(y)=Im[

S ^(z)=−1|δH′|S ^(z)=1

].  (59)

Recall that the two spin states of interest, |S^(z)

are defined as in Eq. (34). Thus:

$\begin{matrix} {{{\langle{S^{z}{{\delta \; H^{\prime}}}S^{z}}\rangle} = 0},\begin{matrix} {{\langle{{S^{z}{{\delta \; H^{\prime}}}} - S^{z}}\rangle} = {\langle{{S^{z}{{{a_{x}{\gamma}^{x}\gamma^{t}} + {a_{y}{\gamma}^{y}\gamma^{t}}}}} - S^{z}}\rangle}} \\ {= {\langle{{S^{z}{a_{x}}} - {\; S^{z}{\langle{{S^{z}{a_{y}}},}}}}}} \end{matrix}} & (60) \end{matrix}$

where

is defined in Eq. (35). Therefore:

h _(x)=Re[

−1|a _(x)

+i

−1|a _(y)

]

h _(y)=Im[

−1|a _(x)

+i

−1|a _(y)

]  (61)

Two Spin Unit Cell

FIG. 14 is a schematic block diagram 1400 showing two vertically coupled spins (shown as heterostructures 1420, 1422), comprising 4 superconducting islands. Each island is labelled 1, . . . , 4 as shown (island 1410 labeled “1”, island 1412 labeled “2”, island 1414 labeled “3”, and island 1416 “4”). C_(z) is a capacitor 1430 connecting islands 2 and 3. In order to optimize energy scales, a capacitance C_(z)′ connecting islands 1 and 4 is also considered (not explicitly shown).

Now consider a pair of vertically separated effective spins, which will form the unit cell for an exemplary brick lattice Kitaev model. This comprises two pairs of A and B islands, as shown in FIGS. 9 and 11 Here, a capacitive coupling C_(Z) is considered, as shown in FIG. 14 In this analysis, the islands are labeled 1, . . . , 4 as shown. A capacitance C_(Z)′ is also considered, purely for subsequent numerical optimization of energy scales, between islands 1 and 4, though this is not explicitly shown in FIG. 14 The Hamiltonian for such a two-spin system is given by

$\begin{matrix} {H_{2s} = {{\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{4}{H_{BdG}\left\lbrack {\Delta_{j},\psi_{j}^{\dagger},\psi_{j}} \right\rbrack}} + {\frac{1}{2}{\sum\limits_{ij}{Q_{i}C_{ij}^{- 1}Q_{j}}}} - {{E_{J}\left( {{\cos \left( {\phi_{1} - \phi_{2}} \right)} + {\cos \left( {\phi_{3} - \phi_{4}} \right)}} \right)}.}}} & (62) \end{matrix}$

The charges Q_(j) (after the unitary transformation discussed in the previous subsection) are

$\begin{matrix} {Q_{j} = {2{{\left( {{- }{\partial_{\phi \; j}{+ \frac{n_{Mj} - n_{offj}}{2}}}} \right)}.}}} & (63) \end{matrix}$

Note the primed superscripts are omitted in the preceding equation and throughout the rest of the discussion. The capacitance matrix C is now a 4×4 matrix:

$\begin{matrix} {C = \begin{pmatrix} {C_{g} + C_{J} + C_{Z}^{\prime}} & {- C_{J}} & 0 & {- C_{Z}^{\prime}} \\ {- C_{J}} & {C_{g} + C_{J} + C_{Z}} & {- C_{Z}} & 0 \\ 0 & {- C_{Z}} & {C_{g} + C_{J} + C_{Z}} & {- C_{J}} \\ {- C_{Z}^{\prime}} & 0 & {- C_{J}} & {C_{g} + C_{J} + C_{Z}^{\prime}} \end{pmatrix}} & (64) \end{matrix}$

It is useful to write H_(2s) as

H _(2s) =H ₁₂ +H ₃₄ +H ₁₂₃₄,  (65)

where

$\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} {H_{12} = {{\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{2}{H_{BdG}\left\lbrack {\Delta_{j},\psi_{j}^{\dagger},\psi_{j}} \right\rbrack}} + {\frac{1}{2}{\sum\limits_{i,{j = 1}}^{2}{Q_{i}C_{ij}^{- 1}Q_{j}}}} - {E_{J}{\cos \left( {\phi_{1} - \phi_{2}} \right)}}}} \\ {= {{\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{2}{H_{BdG}\left\lbrack {\Delta_{j},\psi_{j}^{\dagger},\psi_{j}} \right\rbrack}} - {E_{J}{\cos \left( \phi_{12, -} \right)}} +}} \\ {{{Q_{12, +}^{2}\frac{1}{4}\left( {{C_{11}^{- 1}/2} + {C_{22}^{- 1}/2} + C_{12}^{- 1}} \right)} +}} \\ {{{Q_{12, -}^{2}\frac{1}{4}\left( {{C_{11}^{- 1}/2} + {C_{22}^{- 1}/2} - C_{12}^{- 1}} \right)} + {Q_{12, +}Q_{12, -}\frac{1}{4}\left( {C_{11}^{- 1} - C_{22}^{- 1}} \right)}}} \end{matrix}\begin{matrix} {H_{34} = {{\sum\limits_{j = 3}^{4}{H_{BdG}\left\lbrack {\Delta_{j},\psi_{j}^{\dagger},\psi_{j}} \right\rbrack}} + {\frac{1}{2}{\sum\limits_{i,{j = 3}}^{4}{Q_{i}C_{ij}^{- 1}Q_{j}}}} - {E_{J}{\cos \left( {\phi_{3} - \phi_{4}} \right)}}}} \\ {= {{\sum\limits_{j = 3}^{4}{H_{BdG}\left\lbrack {\Delta_{j},\psi_{j}^{\dagger},\psi_{j}} \right\rbrack}} - {E_{J}{\cos \left( \phi_{34, -} \right)}} +}} \\ {{{Q_{34, +}^{2}\frac{1}{4}\left( {{C_{33}^{- 1}/2} + {C_{44}^{- 1}/2} + C_{34}^{- 1}} \right)} +}} \\ {{{Q_{34, -}^{2}\frac{1}{4}\left( {{C_{33}^{- 1}/2} + {C_{44}^{- 1}/2} - C_{34}^{- 1}} \right)} + {Q_{34, +}Q_{34, -}\frac{1}{4}\left( {C_{33}^{- 1} - C_{44}^{- 1}} \right)}}} \end{matrix}\begin{matrix} {H_{1234} = {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{2}{\sum\limits_{j = 3}^{4}{Q_{i}C_{ij}^{- 1}Q_{j}}}}} \\ {= {\sum\limits_{\sigma_{1},{\sigma_{2} = \pm}}{Q_{12,\sigma_{1}}Q_{34,\sigma_{2}}A_{\sigma_{1}\sigma_{2}}}}} \end{matrix}} & (66) \end{matrix}$

where Q_(ij,±)=Q_(i)±Q_(j) and

A _(σ) ₁ _(σ) ₂ =¼(C ₁₃ ⁻¹+σ₂ C ₁₄ ⁻¹+σ₁ C ₂₃ ⁻¹ +C ₂₄ ⁻¹)  (67)

The terms H₁₂ and H₁₄ are just the Hamiltonians for a single effective spin, which was analyzed in the previous section. These spins are labeled by S_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(z) and S_({right arrow over (r)}−{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z). {right arrow over (r)} and {right arrow over (r)}−{circumflex over (z)} label the two different effective sites, as shown in FIG. 14. H₁₂₃₄, then, couples the two effective spins.

Analytical Treatment

Now, H₁₂₃₄ is treated perturbatively around the decoupled limit H₁₂+H₃₄. This is valid if

A ⁻⁻ ,A ⁻⁺ ,A ⁺⁻ <<E _(C).  (68)

To lowest order in perturbation theory, one can replace H₁₂₃₄ with the effective Hamiltonian H_(eff,z):

$\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {{\langle{S_{\overset{->}{r}}^{z}S_{\overset{->}{r} - \hat{z}}^{z}{H_{{eff},z}}S_{\overset{->}{r}}^{z}S_{\overset{->}{r} - \hat{z}}^{z}}\rangle} = {\langle{S_{\overset{->}{r}}^{z}S_{\overset{->}{r} - \hat{z}}^{z}{H_{1234}}S_{\overset{->}{r}}^{z}S_{\overset{->}{r} - \hat{z}}^{z}}\rangle}} \\ {= {A_{--}{\langle{S_{\overset{->}{r}}^{z}S_{\overset{->}{r} - \hat{z}}^{z}{{Q_{12, -}Q_{34, -}}}S_{\overset{->}{r}}^{z}S_{\overset{->}{r} - \hat{z}}^{z}}\rangle}}} \\ {= {A_{--}{\langle{S_{\overset{->}{r}}^{z}{Q_{12, -}}S_{\overset{->}{r}}^{z}}\rangle}{\langle{S_{\overset{->}{r} - \hat{z}}^{z}{Q_{34, -}}S_{\overset{->}{r} - \hat{z}}^{z}}\rangle}}} \\ {{= {J_{z}S_{\overset{->}{r}}^{z}S_{\overset{->}{r} - \hat{z}}^{z}}},} \end{matrix} & (69) \end{matrix}$

where (see eq. 41)

$\begin{matrix} {J_{z} = {{A_{--}\left( {\frac{}{E_{C}}\frac{\partial h_{z}}{\partial n_{{off} -}}} \right)}^{2}.}} & (70) \end{matrix}$

The second equality in eq. (69) follows because

Q_(12,−)

=

Q_(34,−)

=0, so only the

Q_(12,−)Q_(34,−)

term remains non-zero. It was assumed for simplicity at the two A,B island pairs have the same parameters E_(J), E_(C), n_(off±).

Therefore, to first order in perturbation theory, the effect of the vertical capacitances C_(Z), C_(Z)′, which couple the two spins at {right arrow over (r)} and {right arrow over (r)}−{circumflex over (z)}, is to induce an S_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(z)S_({right arrow over (r)}−z) ^(z) coupling.

Numerical Solution

Now, a more comprehensive analysis of the two-spin model is provided by employing a numerical solution. In FIGS. 15-22, the results of such a numerical solution are presented for certain choices of parameters.

In particular, FIG. 15 is a plot 1500 of energy spectrum of H_(2s) (ignoring the excited state spectrum of H_(BdG)), for the lowest energy states, as a function of the capacitance C_(Z). The other parameters are set to C_(J)=1.5C_(g), C_(Z)′=0, E_(J)=0. The lowest energy curve is doubly degenerate, and is associated with the states (S_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(z), S_({right arrow over (r)}−{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z))=(1, 1), (−1, −1). The next excited state, whose energy difference with the lowest energy curve defines J_(z), is also doubly degenerate and associated with the spin states (S_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(z), S_({right arrow over (r)}−z) ^(z))=(1, −1, (−1, 1). The next excited state lies outside of the effective “spin” subspace, and the gap to these excited states is defined as E_(gauge). The notation E_(gauge) is used because states with energies E>E_(gauge) can violate the “gauge” constraint γ^(x)γ^(y)γ^(z)γ^(t)=1 that is required for the Kitaev spin model.

FIG. 16 is a plot 1600 of J_(z) and E_(gauge). FIGS. 17 and 18 are plots 1700 and 1800 that are the same as in FIGS. 15 and 16 with different parameters as indicated. FIGS. 19 and 20 are plots 1900 and 2000 that are the same as in FIGS. 15 and 16 with different parameters as indicated. FIGS. 21 and 22 are plots 2100 and 2200 that are the same as in FIGS. 15 and 16 with different parameters as indicated. It can be seen that a particularly optimal point occurs when C_(Z)=0.5C_(g).

Horizontally Coupled Unit Cells: Four Spins

FIG. 23 is a schematic block diagram 2300 showing two horizontally coupled unit cells 2310, 2312, comprising 4 spins total. Dashed lines encircle each unit cell. The locations of the spins are {right arrow over (r)}, {right arrow over (r)}−{circumflex over (z)}, {right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}, {right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}+{circumflex over (z)}. t_(A) and t_(B) indicate electron tunneling, as shown.

FIG. 23 illustrates two horizontally separated unit cells connected with semiconductor wires 2320, 2322 as shown, which allows electrons to tunnel between the end points of the wires, with tunneling amplitudes t_(A) and t_(B), as shown. The effective Hamiltonian for this system is now

$\begin{matrix} {{H_{4s} = {{\sum\limits_{I}H_{{2s},I}} + H_{tun}}},} & (71) \end{matrix}$

where H_(2s,I) is the Hamiltonian for the Ith unit cell, which is given by H_(2s) above. H_(tun) contains the horizontal couplings, as explained below.

Here, it is shown that in a suitable parameter regime, at low energies the effective Hamiltonian can be described by the following spin model:

H _(eff,4s) =J _(z) S _({right arrow over (r)}) ^(z) S _({right arrow over (r)}−{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z) +J _(z) S _({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(z) S _({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}+{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z) +J _(yx) S _({right arrow over (r)}) ^(y) S _({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(x),  (72)

with corrections to this effective Hamiltonian being much smaller in energy scale than J_(z), J_(yx).

The electron tunneling terms t_(A) and t_(B) are considered, as shown in FIG. 23

This gives rise to an effective tunneling Hamiltonian (written in the basis before the unitary transformation U):

H _(tun) =[t _(A)ψ_(t,{right arrow over (r)}) ^(†)ψ_(t,{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) +H.c.]+[t _(B)ψ_(y,{right arrow over (r)}) ^(†)ψ_(x,{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) +H.c.]  (73)

Here, {right arrow over (r)} labels the effective spins, each of which consists of an A and a B island. After the unitary transformation by U,

H _(tun) ′=U ^(†) H _(tun) U=[t _(A)(ψ_(t,{right arrow over (r)})′)^(†)ψ_(t,{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ′+H.c.]+[t _(B)(ψ_(y,{right arrow over (r)})′)^(†)ψ_(x,{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ′+H.c.].  (74)

where

ψ′_(α,{right arrow over (r)}) =U ^(†)ψ_(α,{right arrow over (r)}) U=e ^(iφ) ^(j{right arrow over (r)}) ^((1−F) ^(pj,{right arrow over (r)}) ^()/2)ψ_(α,{right arrow over (r)}),

(ψ_(α,{right arrow over (r)})′)^(†)=ψ_(α,r) ^(†) e ^(−iφ) ^(j{right arrow over (r)}) ^((1−F) ^(pj,{right arrow over (r)}) ^()/2)  (75)

where j=A, B depending on whether α=z, t or x, y. Therefore, the tunneling Hamiltonian is, after the unitary transformation:

H _(tun) ′=[t _(A)ψ_(t,{right arrow over (r)}) ^(†) e ^(−i(1−F) ^(p,A,{right arrow over (r)}) ^()φ) ^(A{right arrow over (r)}) ^(/2+i(1−F) ^(p,A,{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^()φ) ^(A{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(/2)ψ_(t,{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) +H.c.]+[t _(B)ψ_(y,{right arrow over (r)}) ^(†) e ^(−i(1−F) ^(p,B,{right arrow over (r)}) ^()φ) ^(B{right arrow over (r)}) ^(/2+i(1−F) ^(p,B,{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^()φ) ^(B{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(/2)ψ_(x,{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) +H.c.],  (76)

Here, the limit is considered where

t _(A) ,t _(B)<Δ,  (77)

where Δ is the proximity-induced superconducting gap in the semiconducting nanowire. In this limit, the electron operator ψ can be replaced by

ψ_(α{right arrow over (r)}) =u _(α,{right arrow over (r)})γ_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(α),  (78)

where u_(α,{right arrow over (r)}) are complex numbers that depend sensitively on microscopic details. Also defined are:

{tilde over (t)} _(A) =t _(A)(u _({right arrow over (r)}) ^(t))*u _({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(t),

{tilde over (t)} _(B) =t _(B)(u _({right arrow over (r)}) ^(y))*u _({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(x),  (79)

Therefore, one can write H_(tun)′ as

$\begin{matrix} {{H_{tun}^{\prime} = \Lambda_{\overset{->}{r}}},\begin{matrix} {\Lambda_{\overset{->}{r}} = \left\lbrack {{{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{A}\gamma_{\overset{->}{r}}^{t}^{{{- {({1 - F_{p,A,\overset{->}{r}}})}}{\phi_{A\overset{->}{r}}/2}} + {{({1 - F_{p,A,{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}}})}{\phi_{{A\overset{->}{r}} + \hat{x}}/2}}}\gamma_{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}^{t}} +} \right.} \\ \left. {{{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{B}\gamma_{\overset{->}{r}}^{y}^{{{- {({1 - F_{p,B,\overset{->}{r}}})}}{\phi_{B\overset{->}{r}}/2}} + {{({1 - F_{p,B,{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}}})}{\phi_{{B\overset{->}{r}} + \hat{x}}/2}}}\gamma_{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}^{x}} + {H.c.}} \right\rbrack \\ {= \left\lbrack {{{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{A}^{{{- {({1 + F_{p,A,\overset{->}{r}}})}}{\phi_{A\overset{->}{r}}/2}} + {{({1 - F_{p,A,{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}}})}{\phi_{{A\overset{->}{r}} + \hat{x}}/2}}}\gamma_{\overset{->}{r}}^{t}\gamma_{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}^{t}} +} \right.} \\ \left. {{{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{B}^{{{- {({1 + F_{p,B,\overset{->}{r}}})}}{\phi_{B\overset{->}{r}}/2}} + {{({1 - F_{p,B,{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}}})}{\phi_{{B\overset{->}{r}} + \hat{x}}/2}}}\gamma_{\overset{->}{r}}^{y}\gamma_{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}^{x}} + {H.c.}} \right\rbrack \end{matrix}} & (80) \end{matrix}$

These single electron tunneling processes violate the charging energy constraint and are therefore suppressed in the limit

{tilde over (t)} _(j) <E _(gauge),  (81)

where E_(gauge) is the energy cost to adding a single electron to the two-spin unit cell. Perturbing in {tilde over (t)}_(j)/E_(gauge), one can obtain an effective Hamiltonian:

$\begin{matrix} {H_{eff} = {{{- \frac{1}{E_{gauge}}}\Lambda_{\overset{->}{r}}^{\dagger}\Lambda_{\overset{->}{r}}} + {\left( {{\overset{\sim}{t}}^{4}\text{/}E_{gauge}^{3}} \right)}}} & (82) \end{matrix}$

Expanding, one can obtain, up to a constant term,

$\begin{matrix} {H_{t,{eff}} = {{- \frac{1}{E_{gauge}}}\left( {h_{t;1} + h_{t;2} + h_{t;3}} \right)}} & (83) \\ {h_{t;1} = {{{- {\overset{\sim}{t}}_{A}^{2}}^{- {({\phi_{A,\overset{->}{r}} - \phi_{A,{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}}})}}} - {{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{B}^{2}^{- {({\phi_{B,\overset{->}{r}} - \phi_{B,{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}}})}}} + {H.c.}}} & (84) \\ \begin{matrix} {h_{t;2} = {2{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{A}{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{B}^{{{{- {({1 + F_{p,A,\overset{->}{r}}})}})}{\phi_{A\overset{->}{r}}/2}} + {{({1 - F_{p,A,{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}}})}{\phi_{{A\overset{->}{r}} + \hat{x}}/2}}}}} \\ {^{{{- {({1 + F_{p,B,\overset{->}{r}}})}}{\phi_{B\overset{->}{r}}/2}} + {{({1 - F_{p,B,{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}}})}{\phi_{{B\overset{->}{r}} + \hat{x}}/2}}}} \\ {{{\gamma_{\overset{->}{r}}^{t}\gamma_{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}^{t}\gamma_{\overset{->}{r}}^{y}\gamma_{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}^{x}} + {H.c.}}} \\ {= {2{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{A}{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{B}^{{{- {\phi}_{+ {,\overset{->}{r}}}}/2} - {{({F_{{p +},{{\overset{->}{r}\phi} +},\overset{->}{r}} + F_{p - {\overset{->}{r}\phi} - \overset{->}{r}}})}/4}}}} \\ {^{{{\phi}_{+ {,{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}}}/2} - {{({F_{{p +},{{\overset{->}{r}\phi} +},{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}} + F_{p - {\overset{->}{r}\phi} - \overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}})}/4}}} \\ {{{\gamma_{\overset{->}{r}}^{t}\gamma_{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}^{t}\gamma_{\overset{->}{r}}^{y}\gamma_{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}^{x}} + {H.c.}}} \end{matrix} & (85) \\ \begin{matrix} {h_{t;3} = {2{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{A}{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{B}^{*}^{{{- {({1 + F_{{p\; A},\overset{->}{r}}})}}{\phi_{A}/2}} + {{({1 - F_{{p\; A},{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}}})}{\phi_{{A\overset{->}{r}} + \hat{x}}/2}}}}} \\ {^{{{({1 - F_{{pB},\overset{->}{r}}})}{\phi_{B,\overset{->}{r}}/2}} - {{({1 + F_{{pB},{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}}})}{\phi_{B,{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}}/2}}}} \\ {{{\gamma_{\overset{->}{r}}^{t}\gamma_{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}^{t}\gamma_{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}^{x}\gamma_{\overset{->}{r}}^{y}} + {H.c.}}} \\ {= {2{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{A}{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{B}^{*}^{{{- {\phi}_{- {,\overset{->}{r}}}}/2} - {{({F_{{p + {\overset{->}{r}\phi} +},\overset{->}{r}} + F_{p - {\overset{->}{r}\phi} - \overset{->}{r}}})}/4}}}} \\ {^{{{\phi}_{- {,{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}}}/2} - {{({F_{{p + \overset{->}{r} + {\hat{x}\phi} +},{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}} + F_{p - \overset{->}{r} + {\hat{x}\phi} - \overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}})}/4}}} \\ {{{\gamma_{\overset{->}{r}}^{t}\gamma_{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}^{t}\gamma_{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}^{x}\gamma_{\overset{->}{r}}^{y}} + {H.c}}} \end{matrix} & (86) \end{matrix}$

Note that in the limit within the analysis is working,

$\begin{matrix} {\frac{2{{{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{A}{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{B}}}}{E_{gauge}},\frac{2{{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{A}}^{2}}{E_{gauge}},{\frac{2{{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{B}}^{2}}{E_{gauge}}E_{gauge}}} & (87) \end{matrix}$

Thus, due to the charging energy on each site {right arrow over (r)}, φ₊ is highly fluctuating independently on each site. Treating (83) perturbatively around the decoupled limit H_(2s), one can see that the following can be set:

F _(p+,{right arrow over (r)}) =F _(pA,{right arrow over (r)}) +F _(pB,{right arrow over (r)})=0,  (88)

F _(p−,{right arrow over (r)})=2F _(pA,{right arrow over (r)})=−2F _(pB,{right arrow over (r)})=2S _({right arrow over (r)}) ^(z).  (89)

Moreover, one can replace h_(t;2), h_(t;1), h_(t;3) by their expectation values in the ground state manifold of H_(2s):

m|h _(t;1,eff) |n

=

m|h _(t;1) |n

=0  (90)

m|h _(t;2,eff) |n

=

m|h _(t;2) |n

=2t _(A) t _(B) u _(t,{right arrow over (r)}) *u _(t,{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) u _(y,{right arrow over (r)}) *u _(x,{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)})

m|e ^(−iφ) ^(+,{right arrow over (r)}) ^(/2−iS) ^({right arrow over (r)}) ^(z) ^(φ) ^(−{right arrow over (r)}) ^(/2) e ^(iφ) ^(+,{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(/2−iS) ^({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(z) ^(φ) ^(−{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(/2)γ_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(t)γ_({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(t)γ_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(y)γ_({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(x) +H.c.|n

=0.  (91)

Here, the following is defined:

{tilde over (t)} _(A) {tilde over (t)} _(B) *=|{tilde over (t)} _(A) {tilde over (t)} _(B) |e ^(iθ)  (92)

Note that the phase θ depends on two quantities: the magnetic flux normal to the system, and the angle between the Zeeman field and the Rashba spin-orbit field. These can both be tuned, and therefore θ can be viewed as a tunable quantity.

$\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {{\langle{m{h_{{t;3},{eff}}}n}\rangle} = {\langle{m{h_{t;3}}n}\rangle}} \\ {{\langle\left. m \middle| {2{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{A}{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{B}^{*}^{{{- {\phi}_{- {,\overset{->}{r}}}}/2} - {\; S_{\overset{->}{r}}^{z}{\phi_{- \overset{->}{r}}/2}}}^{{{\phi}_{- {,{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}}}/2} - {{S}_{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}^{z}{\phi_{{- \overset{->}{r}} + \hat{x}}/2}}}} \right.}} \\ {\left. {{\gamma_{\overset{->}{r}}^{t}\gamma_{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}^{t}\gamma_{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}^{x}\gamma_{\overset{->}{r}}^{y}} + {H.c.}} \middle| n \right.\rangle} \\ {= {\langle\left. m \middle| {\frac{{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{A}{\overset{\sim}{t}}_{B}^{*}}{2}\left( {1 + ^{- {\phi}_{- {,\overset{->}{r}}}} + {\left( {^{- {\phi}_{- {,\overset{->}{r}}}} - 1} \right)S_{\overset{->}{r}}^{z}}} \right)} \right.}} \\ {{{{\begin{pmatrix} {\left( {^{{\phi}_{- {,{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}}}} + 1} \right) +} \\ {\left( {1 - ^{{\phi}_{- {,{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}}}}} \right)S_{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}^{z}} \end{pmatrix}\gamma_{\overset{->}{r}}^{t}}\gamma_{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}^{t}\gamma_{\overset{->}{r} + \hat{x}}^{x}\gamma_{\overset{->}{r}}^{y}} +}} \\ {{\left. {H.c.} \middle| n \right.\rangle}.} \end{matrix} & (93) \end{matrix}$

The eigenstates of interest can be labelled as

|S _({right arrow over (r)}−{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z) S _({right arrow over (r)}) ^(z) S _({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(z) S _({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}+{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z)

.  (94)

Thus, the following matrix elements are of interest:

S _({right arrow over (r)}−{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z) S _({right arrow over (r)}) ^(z) S _({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(z) S _({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}+{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z) |h _(t;3)|(S _({right arrow over (r)}−{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z))′(S _({right arrow over (r)}) ^(z))′(S _({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(z))′(S _({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}+{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z))′

.  (95)

one can see that the only non-zero matrix elements are those for which (S_({right arrow over (r)}−{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z))′=S_({right arrow over (r)}−{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z), (S_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(z))′=−S_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(z), (S_({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(z))′=−S_({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(z), and (S_({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}+{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z))′=S_({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}+{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z). Thus, one can compute

S _({right arrow over (r)}−{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z) S _({right arrow over (r)}) ^(z) S _({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(z) S _({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}+{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z) |h _(t;3) |S _({right arrow over (r)}−{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z) ,−S _({right arrow over (r)}) ^(z) ,−S _({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(z) ,S _({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}+{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z)

.  (96)

In terms of these matrix elements, one can then write the effective Hamiltonian:

$\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {h_{{t;3},{eff}} = {\sum\limits_{\{ S^{z}\}}{{\langle{{S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} - \hat{z}}^{z}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{z}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}^{z}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x} + \hat{z}}^{z}{h_{t;3}}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} - \hat{z}}^{z}},{- S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{z}},{- S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}^{z}},S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x} + \hat{z}}^{z}}\rangle} \times}}} \\ {{{{S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} - \hat{z}}^{z}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{z}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}^{z}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x} + \hat{z}}^{z}}\rangle}{\langle{S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} - \hat{z}}^{z},{- S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{z}},{- S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}^{z}},S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x} + \hat{z}}^{z}}}}} \\ {= {\sum\limits_{s_{1},s_{2},s_{3},{s_{4} = {\pm 1}}}{h_{t;3}^{s_{1},{s_{2,}s_{3}},s_{4}}\frac{\left( {1 + {s_{1}S_{\hat{r} - \hat{z}}^{z}}} \right)}{2}\frac{S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{x} + {s_{2}{iS}_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{y}}}{2}\frac{S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}^{x} + {s_{3}{iS}_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}^{y}}}{2}\frac{\left( {1 + {s_{4}S_{\hat{r} + \hat{x} + \hat{z}}^{z}}} \right)}{2}}}} \\ {{= {\sum\limits_{a,{d = 1},z}{\sum\limits_{b,{c = x},y}{c_{abcd}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} - \hat{z}}^{a}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{b}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}^{c}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x} + \hat{z}}^{d}}}}},} \end{matrix} & (97) \\ {where} & \; \\ \begin{matrix} {{c_{{zxx}\; 1} = {\frac{1}{16}{\sum\limits_{s}{h_{t;3}^{s_{1},s_{2},s_{3},s_{4}}s_{1}}}}},} & {c_{1{xxz}} = {\frac{1}{16}{\sum\limits_{s}{h_{t;3}^{s_{1},s_{2},s_{3},s_{4}}s_{4}}}}} \\ {{c_{{zxy}\; 1} = {\frac{1}{16}{\sum\limits_{s}{h_{t;3}^{s_{1},s_{2},s_{3},s_{4}}{is}_{1}s_{3}}}}},} & {c_{1{xyz}} = {\frac{1}{16}{\sum\limits_{s}{h_{t;3}^{s_{1},s_{2},s_{3},s_{4}}{is}_{4}s_{3}}}}} \\ {{c_{{zyx}\; 1} = {\frac{1}{16}{\sum\limits_{s}{h_{t;3}^{s_{1},s_{2},s_{3},s_{4}}{is}_{1}s_{2}}}}},} & {c_{1{yxz}} = {\frac{1}{16}{\sum\limits_{s}{h_{t;3}^{s_{1},s_{2},s_{3},s_{4}}{is}_{4}s_{2}}}}} \\ {{c_{{zyy}\; 1} = {{- \frac{1}{16}}{\sum\limits_{s}{h_{t;3}^{s_{1},s_{2},s_{3},s_{4}}s_{1}s_{2}s_{3}}}}},} & {c_{1{yyz}} = {{- \frac{1}{16}}{\sum\limits_{s}{h_{t;3}^{s_{1},s_{2},s_{3},s_{4}}s_{4}s_{2}s_{3}}}}} \end{matrix} & (98) \\ \begin{matrix} {{c_{zxxz} = {\frac{1}{16}{\sum\limits_{s}{h_{t;3}^{s_{1},s_{2},s_{3},s_{4}}s_{1}s_{4}}}}},} & {c_{1{xx}\; 1} = {\frac{1}{16}{\sum\limits_{s}h_{t;3}^{s_{1},s_{2},s_{3},s_{4}}}}} \\ {{c_{zxyz} = {\frac{1}{16}{\sum\limits_{s}{h_{t;3}^{s_{1},s_{2},s_{3},s_{4}}{is}_{1}s_{3}s_{4}}}}},} & {c_{1{xy}\; 1} = {\frac{1}{16}{\sum\limits_{s}{h_{t;3}^{s_{1},s_{2},s_{3},s_{4}}{is}_{3}}}}} \\ {{c_{zyxz} = {\frac{1}{16}{\sum\limits_{s}{h_{t;3}^{s_{1},s_{2},s_{3},s_{4}}{is}_{1}s_{2}s_{4}}}}},} & {c_{1{yx}\; 1} = {\frac{1}{16}{\sum\limits_{s}{h_{t;3}^{s_{1},s_{2},s_{3},s_{4}}{is}_{2}}}}} \\ {{c_{zyyz} = {{- \frac{1}{16}}{\sum\limits_{s}{h_{t;3}^{s_{1},s_{2},s_{3},s_{4}}s_{1}s_{2}s_{3}s_{4}}}}},} & {c_{1{yy}\; 1} = {{- \frac{1}{16}}{\sum\limits_{s}{h_{t;3}^{s_{1},s_{2},s_{3},s_{4}}s_{2}s_{3}}}}} \end{matrix} & (99) \end{matrix}$

Now, simplifying h_(t;3) ^(s) ¹ ^(,s) ² ^(,s) ³ ^(,s) ⁴ :

h _(t;3) ^(s) ¹ ^(,s) ² ^(,s) ³ ^(,s) ⁴ =i|{tilde over (t)} _(A) {tilde over (t)} _(B)|(

s ₁ ,s ₂ ,s ₃ ,s ₄ |iIm(e ^(iθ)(e ^(−iφ) ^(−,{right arrow over (r)}) −1)(e ^(iφ) ^(−,{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) +1))|s ₁ ,{tilde over (s)} ₂ ,{tilde over (s)} ₃ ,s ₄

+s ₂

s ₁ ,s ₂ ,s ₃ ,s ₄|Re(e ^(iθ)(e ^(−iφ) ^(−,{right arrow over (r)}) +1)(e ^(iφ) ^(−,{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) +1))|s ₁ ,{tilde over (s)} ₂ ,{tilde over (s)} ₃ ,s ₄

+s ₃

s ₁ ,s ₂ ,s ₃ ,s ₄|Re(e ^(iθ)(e ^(−iφ) ^(−,{right arrow over (r)}) −1)(−e ^(iφ) ^(−,{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) +1))|s ₁ ,{tilde over (s)} ₂ ,{tilde over (s)} ₃ ,s ₄

+s ₂ s ₃

s ₁ ,s ₂ ,s ₃ ,s ₄ |iIm(e ^(iθ)(e ^(−iφ) ^(−,{right arrow over (r)}) +1)(1−e ^(iφ−,{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)})))|s ₁ ,{tilde over (s)} ₂ ,{tilde over (s)} ₃ ,s ₄

)  (108)

Here, the following has been defined

|s ₁ ,s ₂ ,s ₃ ,s ₄

=|S _({right arrow over (r)}−{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z) =s ₁ ,S _({right arrow over (r)}) ^(z) =s ₂ ,S _({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(z) =s ₃ ,S _({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}+{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z) =s ₄

.  (101)

The states with the tildes over the s's indicate that the phase mode has the opposite wave function as compared with the spin degree of freedom, as described for the single spin case in Eq. (35). Now define

A _(s) ₁ _(,s) ₂ _(,s) ₃ _(,s) ₄ ^(σ) ¹ ^(,σ) ² =

s ₁ ,s ₂ ,s ₃ ,s ₄|Re(e ^(iθ)(e ^(−iφ) ^(−,{right arrow over (r)}) +σ₁)(σ₂ e ^(iφ) ^(−,{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) +1))|s ₁ ,{tilde over (s)} ₂ ,{tilde over (s)} ₃ ,s ₄

,

B _(s) ₁ _(,s) ₂ _(,s) ₃ _(,s) ₄ ^(σ) ¹ ^(,σ) ² =

s ₁ ,s ₂ ,s ₃ ,s ₄ |iIm(e ^(iθ)(e ^(−iφ) ^(−,{right arrow over (r)}) +σ₁)(σ₂ e ^(iφ) ^(−,{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) +1))|s ₁ ,{tilde over (s)} ₂ ,{tilde over (s)} ₃ ,s ₄

.  (102)

In terms of A one has

h _(t;3) ^(s) ¹ ^(,s) ² ^(,s) ³ ^(,s) ⁴ =i|{tilde over (t)} _(A) {tilde over (t)} _(B)|(B _(s) ₁ _(,s) ₂ _(,s) ₃ _(,s) ₄ ^(−1,1) +s ₂ A _(s) ₁ _(,s) ₂ _(,s) ₃ _(,s) ₄ ^(1,1) +s ₃ A _(s) ₁ _(,s) ₂ _(,s) ₃ _(,s) ₄ ^(−1,−1) +s ₂ s ₃ B _(s) ₁ _(,s) ₂ _(,s) ₃ _(,s) ₄ ^(1,−1))  (103)

It can be seen that the following expectation values can be computed for the two-spin system:

v _(s) ₁ _(,s) ₂ _(;±) =

S _({right arrow over (r)}−{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z) =s ₁ ,S _({right arrow over (r)}) ^(z) =s ₂ |e ^(±iφ) ^({right arrow over (r)}) |S _({right arrow over (r)}−{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z) =s ₁ ,S _({right arrow over (r)}) ^(z) ={tilde over (s)} ₂

w _(s) ₁ _(,s) ₂ _(;±) =

S _({right arrow over (r)}−{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z) =s ₁ ,S _({right arrow over (r)}) ^(z) =s ₂ |e ^(±iφ) ^({right arrow over (r)}−{circumflex over (z)}) |S _({right arrow over (r)}−{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z) ={tilde over (s)} ₁ ,S _({right arrow over (r)}) ^(z) =s ₂

,

g _(1,s) ₁ _(,s) ₂ =∠S _({right arrow over (r)}−{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z) =s ₁ ,S _({right arrow over (r)}) ^(z) =s ₂ |S _({right arrow over (r)}−{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z) =s ₁,

g _(2,s) ₁ _(,s) ₂ =∠S _({right arrow over (r)}−{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z) =s ₁ ,S _({right arrow over (r)}) ^(z) =s ₂ |

s ₁ ,S _({right arrow over (r)}) ^(z) =s ₂)  (104)

In terms of these expectation values,

A _(s) ₁ _(,s) ₂ _(,s) ₃ _(,s) ₄ ^(σ) ¹ ^(,σ) ² =½e ^(iθ)(v _(s) ₁ _(s) ₂ _(,−)+σ₁ g _(1,s) ₁ _(,s) ₂ )(σ₂ w _(s) ₃ _(s) ₄ _(,−) +g _(2,s) ₃ _(,s) ₄ )+½e ^(−iθ)(v _(s) ₁ _(s) ₂ _(,+)+σ₁ g _(1,s) ₁ _(,s) ₂ )(σ₂ w _(s) ₃ _(s) ₄ _(,+) +g _(2,s) ₃ _(,s) ₄ )

B _(s) ₁ _(,s) ₂ _(,s) ₃ _(,s) ₄ ^(σ) ¹ ^(,σ) ² =½e ^(iθ)(v _(s) ₁ _(s) ₂ _(,−)+σ₁ g _(1,s) ₁ _(,s) ₂ )(σ₂ w _(s) ₄ _(s) ₃ _(,−) +g _(2,s) ₃ _(,s) ₄ )−½e ^(−iθ)(v _(s) ₁ _(s) ₂ _(,+)+σ₁ g _(1,s) ₁ _(,s) ₂ )(σ₂ w _(s) ₄ _(s) ₃ _(,+) +g _(2,s) ₃ _(,s) ₄ )  (105)

Note that the eigenstates |S_({right arrow over (r)}−{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z)=s₁, S_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(z)={tilde over (s)}₂

can be changed by a phase, which will modify the expressions above. It is useful to pick a choice of phase so that, when possible, g, v, w>0. In FIGS. 24-26 some results for the numerical calculation of c_(abcd) are displayed in plots 2400, 2500, and 2600. FIG. 24 is a plot 2400 of the 16 parameters c_(abcd), for a, d=1, z and b, c=x, y, as a function of θ. The only ones that differ appreciably from zero are c_(1bc1). FIG. 25 is a plot 2500 of the 16 parameters c_(abcd), for a, d=1, z and b, c=x, y, as a function of θ. The only ones that differ appreciably from zero are c_(1bc1). One can see that for θ≈0, π, c_(1yx1) is much larger than c_(1xy1), c_(1xx1), and c_(1yy1). FIG. 26 is a plot 2600 of the 16 parameters c_(abcd), for a, d=1, z and b, c=x, y, as a function of θ.

One can see that in all cases, the only appreciable couplings are c_(1ab1); c_(zbcd) and c_(abcz) are both quite small. This is because the amplitudes h_(t;3) ^(s) ¹ ^(s) ² ^(s) ³ ^(s) ⁴ have a very weak dependence on s₁ and s₄ and thus essentially cancel each other in the sum.

When E_(J)=0, then FIG. 24 shows that at θ=0, only c_(1xy1)=−c_(1yx1)=1; for all values of θ, at least two of the four couplings c_(1xx1), c_(1xy1), c_(1yx1), and c_(1yy1) are of the same order. As shown in FIGS. 25-26 when E_(J)≠0, one can enter the regime where only c_(1yx1) is appreciable while all others are much smaller. In fact, one can see from the equations above that if the matrix element

s₁, s₂, s₃, s₄|e^(iφ) ^(−,{right arrow over (r)}) |s₁, {tilde over (s)}₂, {tilde over (s)}₃, s₄

is close to one, which is the case for large E_(J), then the only appreciable term in c_(1bc1) will be c_(1yx1). This is the reason that E_(J)≠0. The optimal point would be to take E_(J) to be as large as possible; however this would dramatically reduce the J_(z) coupling, which was calculated in the previous section. Therefore, it is desirable to find an optimal point where E_(J) is non-zero so that only c_(1yx1) is appreciable, while J_(z) is still large enough.

2D Networks

Now consider the 2D network 2700 shown in FIG. 27. The effective Hamiltonian for this is given by

$\begin{matrix} {{H_{2D} = {{\sum\limits_{I}H_{{2s},I}} + H_{tun}}},} & (106) \end{matrix}$

where H_(2s,I) is the Hamiltonian for the Ith unit cell; for each unit cell, this is given by H_(2s) above. H_(tun) contains the horizontal tunneling terms, which were analyzed for the case of two horizontally coupled unit cells in the preceding section. For the full 2D system, it is given by:

$\begin{matrix} {H_{tun} = {\sum\limits_{\underset{r}{->}}\; {\left\lbrack {{t_{A}\psi_{t,\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{\dagger}\psi_{t,{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}}} + {t_{B}\psi_{y,\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{\dagger}\psi_{x,{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}}} + {H.c.}} \right\rbrack.}}} & (107) \end{matrix}$

Perturbing around the independent unit cell limit t_(A), t_(B)=0, a simple generalization of the analysis of the preceding section gives the following effective Hamiltonian, which operates in the subspace spanned by the two effective spin states on each site:

$\begin{matrix} {{H_{{2D};{eff}} = {{\sum\limits_{\overset{->}{R}}{J_{z}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}^{z}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R} - \hat{z}}^{z}}} + {J_{yx}{\sum\limits_{\overset{->}{r}}{S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{y}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}^{x}}}} + {\delta \; H}}},} & (108) \end{matrix}$

where Σ_({right arrow over (R)}) sums over all unit cells, and {right arrow over (R)} refers to the top spin of each two-spin unit cell. As was shown in the preceding sections, there exist parameter regimes where the additional terms in δH are negligible:

∥δH∥<<J _(z) ,J _(yx).  (109)

H_(2D;eff) can be recognized to be the Kitaev honeycomb spin model. Specifically, one can perform a π spin rotation around S^(z) on every other site, which brings the H_(2D;eff) into the form

$\begin{matrix} {{H_{{2D};{eff}} = {{\sum\limits_{\overset{->}{R}}\left( {{J_{z}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}^{z}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R} - \hat{z}}^{z}} + {J_{y}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}^{y}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R} + \hat{x}}^{y}} + {J_{x}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}^{x}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R} - \hat{x}}^{x}}} \right)} + {\delta \; H}}},} & (110) \end{matrix}$

which is the more familiar form of the Kitaev model. Here, J_(y)=−J_(x)=J_(yx).

Numerical Estimates of Energy Scales

In the discussion and figures above, the results of several numerical calculations of the energy spectra of the single effective spin, the two spin unit cell, and the couplings constants of the effective spin interaction terms were presented. From FIGS. 15-22, it can be seen that the J_(z) interactions, which couple the vertically separated spins via an interaction S_({right arrow over (R)}) ^(z)S_({right arrow over (R)}−{circumflex over (z)}) ^(z), are on the order of a few percent of the Josephson charging energy e²/C_(J), in order for the low energy spin manifold to be comfortably separated from the rest of the excitations of the system. FIGS. 24-26 show that a finite Josephson coupling E_(J) is required, so that the horizontal couplings will be in the appropriate regime of the Kitaev honeycomb model.

Preliminary calculations suggest that the following parameter regime is a good one:

C _(J)=1.5C _(g) C _(Z) =C _(Z)′=0.5C _(g) E _(J)=0.45E _(C) _(J) θ=0, |{tilde over (t)} _(A) |=|{tilde over (t)} _(B)|≈0.1E _(gauge).  (111)

With this choice of parameters, one finds that J_(z)≈0.02E_(C) _(J) , while the energy cost to the other excited states of the two-spin unit cell is approximately ten times as large, E_(gauge)≈0.23E_(C) _(J) . This gives a comfortable energy window that separates the low-lying effective spin states and the rest of the states of the system. FIG. 26 shows that with this choice of parameters, c_(1yx1)≈−1.75, while c_(1xy1)≈0.3, and c_(1xx1)=c_(1yy1)=0, as are all other horizontal coupling terms. This gives almost a factor of approximately 6 between the horizontal couplings that are desired and the undesired ones. In terms of absolute energy scales, one has:

|J _(x) |=|J _(y)|=1.75|{tilde over (t)} _(A) {tilde over (t)} _(B) |/E _(gauge).  (112)

If one sets |{tilde over (t)}_(A)|=|{tilde over (t)}_(B)|=0.2E_(gauge) to ensure the single electron tunneling processes are suppressed relative to the second order process, one finds |J_(x)|=|J_(y)|=1.75×0.04E_(gauge)=0.016E_(C) _(J) , which is almost the same order as the J_(z) estimate above.

Therefore, one can see that to get an effective spin model whose dominant interactions are the Kitaev interactions, while all other interactions are suppressed, one can get energy scales that are roughly in the range of a few percent of the Josephson charging energies E_(C) _(J) . To get a large energy scale, then, one can use a physical setup with the largest possible Josephson charging energy e²/C_(J), which can also simultaneously accommodate a Josephson coupling E_(J)≈0.5e²/C_(J).

Typical Al—Al_(x)O_(1-x) Josephson junctions have Josephson charging energies on the order of E_(C) _(J) ≈1 K, which can therefore give interaction strengths J_(z), J_(x), J_(y)≈20 mK.

Josephson junctions made from gated semiconductor wires, such as Al—InAs—Al junctions, can yield much larger Josephson charging energies, because the distance between the superconductors (ie the length of the nanowire junction) can be much larger. For example, consider InAs wires with radius r and a distance d between the Al superconductors. For r=20-60 nm and d=100-450 nm, critical supercurrents I_(c)=1-135 nA have been measured, which corresponds to E_(J)=I_(c)/2e≈0.05-3 K. If one considers d=100 nm and the superconductor consisting of a wire of Al epitaxially grown on the InAs nanowire with total radius 100 nm, one can estimate C_(J)=ε_(r)ε₀π(100 nm)²/(100 nm). Taking ε_(r)=15 for InAs, this implies a charging energy e²/C_(J)≈40 K. This can be further reduced by increasing the radius or decreasing d.

Interestingly, devices with d=30 nm have also been fabricated, and have been reported to yield critical currents as high as I_(c)=800 nA, for InAs nanowires with radius r=40 nm. This corresponds to E_(J)≈40 K. If one assumes the parallel plate capacitor formula for a radius 40 nm and d=30 nm, one would get e²/C_(J)≈75 K. However, it is not clear whether such a high supercurrent is due to unwanted parasitic effects that are introduced during the fabrication process.

To put this on a somewhat more theoretical footing, consider that the supercurrent is typically given by

I _(c) R _(N)=πΔ/2e,  (113)

where R_(N) is the normal-state resistance of the junction, and Δ is the superconducting gap. For a semiconducting wire with N_(c) channels, this implies

$\begin{matrix} {E_{J} = {{{{hI}_{c}/2}e} = {{\frac{h}{e^{2}}\frac{\pi}{4}\Delta \; N_{c}\frac{e^{2}}{h}} = {\Delta \; {N_{c}/8}}}}} & (114) \end{matrix}$

where the conductance is e²/h per channel. For Al, with Δ=1.2 K, this implies that E_(J)=0.15N_(c) K.

The above considerations, and in particular the experimental measurements, suggest that it could be possible, with Al—InAs—Al junctions, to get to a regime where E_(C) _(J) =2E_(J)≈5-10 K. This would then imply

J _(z) ,J _(x) ,J _(y)≈0.1-0.2 K.  (115)

Note that Nb is also a candidate material that can be used in these setups, instead of Al. Indeed, Nb—InAs—Nb Josephson junctions have been fabricated and measured (see, e.g., H. Y. Gnel, I. E. Batov, H. Hardtdegen, K. Sladek, A. Winden, K. Weis, G. Panaitov, D. Grtzmacher, and T. Schpers, Journal of Applied Physics 112, 034316 (2012), URL http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jap/112/3/10.1063/1.4745024). While the use of Nb presents certain technical obstacles for fabricating the required semiconductor-superconductor heterostructures, it has the advantage that the superconducting gap is much larger, Δ_(Nb)≈9 K. This implies that the energy scales considered above will be a factor of Δ_(Nb)/Δ_(Al)=7.5 larger if Nb is used instead and good contact can be made between the Nb and the InAs. So far such an enhancement in the critical supercurrent has not been observed due to contact quality, but there are no fundamental obstacles to improving this contact quality and thus achieving this factor of 7-8 enhancement.

This would then suggest the theoretical possibility

J _(z) ,J _(x) ,J _(y)≈0.5-2 K.  (116)

Superconductors with even larger gaps, such as NbTiN, could potentially yield even larger energy scales.

Quantum Phase Slip Based Implementation Further Single Spin Embodiments

In this section, an alternative possible architecture is considered, which utilizes the physics of quantum phase slips to engineer an effective Kitaev spin model. The main building block of this architecture is a set of four Majorana fermion zero modes, as shown in FIG. 28.

In particular FIG. 28 is a schematic block diagram 2800 showing a configuration that exhibits a single effective spin. The A and B islands (2810, 2812, respectively) are each coupled to a large superconductor 2820 with Josephson couplings J_(r) (2830, 2832). This is to emulate the embedding of the single spin into a larger network.

Each pair of Majorana zero modes arises from the endpoints of a spin-orbit coupled semiconductor nanowire, proximity coupled to a superconducting island. Each pair of Majorana fermion zero modes gives rise to two degenerate states, associated with whether the fermion parity on the island is even or odd. The four Majorana zero modes will be labelled as γ^(x), γ^(y), γ^(z), and γ^(t), as shown in FIG. 28.

The effective Hamiltonian for the system shown in FIG. 28 is

$\begin{matrix} {H_{ss} = {{\sum\limits_{{j = A},B}{H_{BdG}\left\lbrack {{\Delta_{j}^{\; \phi \; j}},\psi_{j}^{\dagger},\psi_{j}} \right\rbrack}} - {E_{J}{\cos \left( {\phi_{A} - \phi_{B}} \right)}} - {E_{J_{r}}{\sum\limits_{{i = A},B}{\cos \left( {\phi \; i} \right)}}} + {\frac{1}{2}{\sum\limits_{i,j,{= A},B}{Q_{i}C_{ij}^{- 1}Q_{j}}}}}} & (117) \end{matrix}$

Here, φ_(j) for j=A, B is the superconducting phase on the A and B islands, H_(BdG)[Δ_(j)e^(iφ) ^(j) ,ψ_(j) ^(†),ψ_(j)] is the BdG Hamiltonian for the nanowire on the jth island, where |Δ_(j)| is the proximity-induced superconducting gap on the jth nanowire. Q_(j) is the excess charge on the jth superconducting island-nanowire combination; it can be written as:

Q _(j) =e(−2iθ _(φj) +N _(j) −n _(offj)),  (118)

where −i∂_(φj) represents the number of Cooper pairs on the jth superconducting island, N_(j)=∫ψ_(j) ^(†)ψ_(j) is the total number of electrons on the jth nanowire, and n_(offj) is the remaining offset charge on the jth island, which can be tuned continuously with the gate voltage V_(g). The capacitance matrix is

$\begin{matrix} {C = \begin{pmatrix} {C_{g} + C_{J} + C_{r}} & {- C_{J}} \\ {- C_{J}} & {C_{g} + C_{J} + C_{r}} \end{pmatrix}} & (119) \end{matrix}$

As in the single spin subsection, a unitary transformation U=e^(−iΣ) ^(j=A,B) ^((N) ^(j) ^(/2−n) ^(Mj) ^(/2)φ) ^(j) is performed in order to decouple the phase φ_(j) from the fermions ψ_(j) in H_(BdG). Here, n_(Mj)=0, 1 is the occupation number of the pair of Majorana zero modes on wire j. It is given in terms of the Majorana zero modes as

n _(MA)=(1+iγ ^(z)γ^(t))/2,

n _(MB)=(1+iγ ^(x)γ^(y))/2.  (120)

Under this transformation, the charge Q_(j) transforms as:

Q _(j) ′=U ^(†) Q _(j) U=e(−2i∂ _(φj) +n _(Mj) −n _(offj)).  (121)

Thus, taking H_(ss)→U^(†)H_(ss)U, one obtains

$\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {H_{ss}^{\prime} = {{U^{\dagger}H_{ss}U} = {{\sum\limits_{j}{H_{BdG}\left\lbrack {\Delta_{j},\psi_{j}^{\dagger},\psi_{j}} \right\rbrack}} - {E_{J}{\cos \left( {\phi_{A} - \phi_{B}} \right)}} -}}} \\ {{{E_{J_{r}}{\sum\limits_{{i = A},B}{\cos \left( {\phi \; i} \right)}}} + {\frac{1}{2}{\sum\limits_{i,j,{= A},B}{Q_{i}^{\prime}C_{ij}^{- 1}Q_{j}^{\prime}}}}}} \\ {= {{\sum\limits_{j}{H_{BdG}\left\lbrack {\Delta_{j},\psi_{j}^{\dagger},\psi_{j}} \right\rbrack}} - {E_{J}{\cos \left( \phi_{-} \right)}} -}} \\ {{{2E_{J_{r}}{\cos \left( {\phi_{+}/2} \right)}{\cos \left( {\phi_{-}/2} \right)}} + {\frac{1}{4}\left( Q_{+}^{\prime} \right)^{2}\left( {C_{AA}^{- 1} + C_{AB}^{- 1}} \right)} +}} \\ {{{\frac{1}{4}\left( Q_{-}^{\prime} \right)^{2}\left( {C_{AA}^{- 1} - C_{AB}^{- 1}} \right)},}} \end{matrix} & (122) \end{matrix}$

where C_(AA)=C_(BB), and

Q _(±) =Q _(A) ±Q _(B).  (123)

In what follows, the prime superscripts are dropped for convenience.

It is helpful to consider the Lagrangian for this system, which is given by

$\begin{matrix} {L_{\phi} = {{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{4e^{2}}{\overset{.}{\varphi}}_{i}C_{ij}{\overset{.}{\varphi}}_{j}} + {\frac{1}{2}\left( {n_{Mi} - n_{off}} \right){\overset{.}{\phi}}_{i}} + {E_{J}{\cos \left( {\phi_{A} - \phi_{B}} \right)}} + {E_{J_{r}}{\sum\limits_{{i = A},B}{\cos \left( \phi_{i} \right)}}}}} & (124) \end{matrix}$

The limit is considered where

E _(J) ,E _(J) _(r) >>e ² C _(IJ) ⁻¹,  (125)

in which case φ_(A), φ_(B) are pinned, while the conjugate variables {circumflex over (N)}_(A), {circumflex over (N)}_(B) are highly fluctuating. For energy scales below E_(J), E_(J) _(r) , the effective Hamiltonian of this two island system takes the form

H _(0D)=ζ_(A) iγ ^(x)γ^(y)+ζ_(B) iγ ^(z)γ^(t)−ζ_(AB)γ^(x)γ^(y)γ^(z)γ^(t)  (126)

The first two terms are due to quantum phase slip events where either φ_(A) or φ_(B) change by 2π. The last term is due to the quantum phase slip event where both islands A and B collectively change their phase by 2π, relative to the phase Φ of the reservoir. These phase slip processes effectively measure the fermion parity of the region undergoing the phase slip, which can be expressed in terms of the Majorana fermion modes.

The quantum phase slip amplitudes, ζ_(A), ζ_(B), ζ_(AB), can be computed using the standard instanton calculation, in the limit of dilute instantons. To leading order in e⁻√{square root over (8(E_(J)+E _(J) _(r) )/E_(C) _(AA) )}

this is estimated to be

$\begin{matrix} {{\zeta_{A} = {{- {\cos \left( {\pi \; n_{offA}} \right)}}8E_{C_{AA}}\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\left( \frac{E_{J} + E_{J_{r}}}{2E_{C_{AA}}} \right)^{3/4}e^{- \sqrt{8{{({E_{J} - E_{J_{r}}})}/E_{C_{AA}}}}}}}{\zeta_{B} = {{- {\cos \left( {\pi \; n_{offB}} \right)}}8E_{C_{BB}}\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\left( \frac{E_{J} + E_{J_{r}}}{2E_{C_{BB}}} \right)^{3/4}e^{- \sqrt{8{{({E_{J} + E_{J_{r}}})}/E_{C_{BB}}}}}}}\mspace{79mu} {\zeta_{AB} = {{- {\cos \left( {\pi \; n_{{off} +}} \right)}}8E_{C_{AB}}\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\left( \frac{E_{J_{r}}}{E_{C_{AB}}} \right)^{3/4}e^{- \sqrt{8{{({2E_{J_{r}}})}/E_{C_{AB}}}}}}}\mspace{79mu} {{{{where}\mspace{14mu} E_{C_{ii}}} = \frac{e^{2}}{2C_{ii}}},{{{and}\mspace{14mu} E_{C_{AB}}} = {\frac{e^{2}}{4}{\left( {C_{AA}^{- 1} + C_{AB}^{- 1}} \right).}}}}} & (127) \end{matrix}$

It is assumed that the direct coupling between these different Majorana zero modes, which is generated by electron tunneling between the two ends of the wires, is much smaller than all other energy scales in the problem, and can therefore be ignored.

Observe now that if one sets

n _(offI)=½, I=A,B,  (128)

then the effective Hamiltonian is simply

H _(eff,ss)=−ζ_(AB)γ^(x)γ^(y)γ^(z)γ^(t),  (129)

which enforces the constraint

γ^(x)γ^(y)γ^(z)γ^(t)=1  (130)

for states with energies much less than ζ_(AB). The ground state subspace of this system is therefore doubly degenerate and acts like a spin, with

S ^(z) =iγ ^(z)γ^(t).  (131)

Slightly tuning the offset n_(offA) and/or n_(offB) away from ½ acts like a Zeeman field h_(z)S^(z).

1D Chain

Next, consider a 1D chain of the A, B superconducting island pairs introduced in the previous subsection.

In particular, FIG. 29 is a schematic block diagram 2900 showing a 1D chain. In FIG. 29, t_(A) and t_(B) indicate electron tunneling.

The coupling between the effective sites of the chain consists of the Majorana fermion tunneling terms shown in FIG. 29 with tunneling amplitudes t_(A) and t_(B). In addition to the single particle tunneling terms between the Majorana zero modes, there are pair tunneling terms that induce Josephson couplings J_(A), J_(B) between the islands. Finally, there are cross-capacitances between the different superconducting islands; the regime is considered where the charging energies due to these cross-capacitances are much smaller than the tunneling and Josephson couplings, and can therefore be ignored. The effective Hamiltonian of the chain is therefore

$\begin{matrix} {{H_{1D} = {\sum\limits_{\overset{->}{r}}\left\lbrack {h_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}} + h_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r},{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}}} \right\rbrack}},} & (132) \end{matrix}$

where each h_({right arrow over (r)}) is given by the Hamiltonian H_(ss) described in the previous section, and

h _({right arrow over (r)},{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) =t _(A)ψ_(t{right arrow over (r)}) ^(†)ψ_(t{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) +t _(B)ψ_(y{right arrow over (r)}) ^(†)ψ_(x{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) −J _(A) cos(φ_({right arrow over (r)},A)−φ_({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)},A))−J _(B) cos(φ_({right arrow over (r)},B)−φ_({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)},B)).  (133)

Note that the pair tunnelings J_(A) and J_(B) in this setup are generated by pair tunneling between the Majorana zero modes, and thus J_(A)<t_(A), J_(B)<t_(B). Performing the unitary transformation U in the previous section, and then setting

ψ_(α{right arrow over (r)}) =u ^(α)γ_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(α)  (134)

as in the previous section, one gets:

h _({right arrow over (r)},{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) =[{tilde over (t)} _(A) e ^(−i(1+F) ^(p,A,{circumflex over (r)}) ^()φ) ^(A{circumflex over (r)}) ^(/2+i(1−F) ^(p,A,{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^()φ) ^(A{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(/2)γ_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(t)γ_({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(t) +{tilde over (t)} _(B) e ^(−(1+F) ^(p,B,{right arrow over (r)}) ^()φ) ^(B{right arrow over (r)}) ^(/2+i(1−F) ^(p,B,{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^()φ) ^(B{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(/2)γ_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(y)γ_({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(x) +H.c.]−J _(A) cos(φ_({right arrow over (r)},A)−φ_({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)},A))−J _(B) cos(φ_({right arrow over (r)},B)−φ_({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)},B)).  (135)

Now, since one is in the limit of large Josephson couplings, all of the phases of the superconducting islands can be set equal to each other, which can be set to zero without loss of generality:

φ_(A{right arrow over (r)})=φ_(B{right arrow over (r)})=0,  (136)

with corrections coming from instanton events. Thus, h_({right arrow over (r)},{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) becomes

h _({right arrow over (r)},{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)})=[2iIm({tilde over (t)} _(A))γ_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(t)γ_({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(t)+2iIm({tilde over (t)} _(B))γ_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(y)γ_({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(x)].  (137)

Here, consider the limit where

{tilde over (t)} _(A) ,{tilde over (t)} _(B)<<ζ_(AB).  (138)

In this case, the single tunneling events are suppressed; perturbing to second order in h_({right arrow over (r)},{right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}), an effective Hamiltonian as follows is obtained:

$\begin{matrix} {h_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r},{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}}^{eff} = {{- \frac{4{{Im}\left( {\overset{\sim}{t}}_{A} \right)}{{Im}\left( {\overset{\sim}{t}}_{B} \right)}}{\zeta_{AB}}}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{y}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{t}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}^{x}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}^{t}}} & (139) \end{matrix}$

Therefore, the effective Hamiltonian of the 1D chain is given by:

$\begin{matrix} {H_{1D} = {\sum\limits_{\overset{->}{r}}\left\lbrack {{\zeta_{A}i\; \gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{x}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{y}} + {\zeta_{B}i\; \gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{z}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{t}} - {\zeta_{AB}\; \gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{x}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{y}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{z}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{t}} - {\frac{4{{Im}\left( {\overset{\sim}{t}}_{A} \right)}{{Im}\left( {\overset{\sim}{t}}_{B} \right)}}{\zeta_{AB}}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{y}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{t}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}^{x}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}^{t}}} \right\rbrack}} & (140) \end{matrix}$

If it is assumed for simplicity that J_(A)=J_(B)=J, then the quantum phase slip amplitudes are essentially as given in Eqn. 147, with E_(J) _(r) =2J, and C_(r) being twice the capacitance across the semiconductor wires.

2D Network

Now consider assembling the 1D chains described above into a two-dimensional network. In particular, consider the network shown in FIG. 30, which effectively forms a brick (honeycomb) lattice.

In particular, FIG. 30 is a schematic block diagram 3000 showing a single plaquette of the 2D network. The Josephson coupling between different spins is E_(J) _(Z) (also represented by dashed line 3030), while E_(J) ₁ is the Josephson coupling between the A and B island of a single spin (also represented by dashed line 3032).

Each unit cell (e.g., unit cells 3020, 3022) of the lattice comprises two pairs of superconducting islands: two A islands (A islands 3010, 3011) and two B islands (B islands 3012, 3013), separated vertically from each other.

The Hamiltonian for the system can be written as

$\begin{matrix} {{H_{2D} = {{\sum\limits_{\overset{->}{R}}H_{{2s},\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}} + H_{tun}}},} & (141) \end{matrix}$

where {right arrow over (R)} is the location of the top spin of each unit cell, Σ_({right arrow over (R)}) is thus a sum over unit cells, and the Hamiltonian for each unit cell H_(2s;{right arrow over (R)}):

$\begin{matrix} {H_{{2s};\overset{\rightarrow}{R}} = {{\sum\limits_{I = 1}^{4}\; H_{BdG}} + {\frac{1}{2}{\sum\limits_{I,{J = 1}}^{4}\; {Q_{l}C_{IJ}^{- 1}Q_{J}}}} - {E_{J_{1}}{\cos \left( {\phi_{A\overset{\rightarrow}{R}} - \phi_{B\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}} \right)}} - {E_{J_{1}}{\cos \left( {\phi_{{A\overset{\rightarrow}{R}} - \hat{z}} - \phi_{{B\overset{\rightarrow}{R}} - \hat{z}}} \right)}} - {E_{J_{Z}}{{\cos \left( {\phi_{B\overset{\rightarrow}{R}} - \phi_{{A\overset{\rightarrow}{R}} - \hat{z}}} \right)}.}}}} & (142) \end{matrix}$

The 4×4 capacitance matrix now is

$\begin{matrix} {C = \begin{pmatrix} {C_{g} + C_{J}} & {- C_{J}} & 0 & 0 \\ {- C_{J}} & {C_{g} + C_{J} + C_{J_{z}}} & {- C_{J_{z}}} & 0 \\ 0 & {- C_{J_{z}}} & {C_{g} + C_{J} + C_{J_{z}}} & {- C_{J}} \\ 0 & 0 & {- C_{J}} & {C_{g} + C_{J}} \end{pmatrix}} & (143) \end{matrix}$

The tunneling Hamiltonian H_(tun) is:

$\begin{matrix} {H_{t} = {\sum\limits_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}\left\lbrack {{t_{A}\psi_{t\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{\dagger}\psi_{{t\overset{\rightarrow}{r}} + \hat{x}}} + {t_{B}\psi_{y\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{\dagger}\psi_{{x\overset{\rightarrow}{r}} + \hat{x}}} + {H.c.}} \right\rbrack}} & (144) \end{matrix}$

Here, the capacitance between horizontally separated islands is ignored, as the islands are assumed to be far enough apart that their capacitance is negligible.

Based on the analysis of the single spin case and the 1D chain, one can see that the low energy effective Hamiltonian for this system can be written as

H _(2D;eff) =H ₁ +H ₂ +H _(t;eff),  (145)

where H₁ consists of single island phase slips:

$\begin{matrix} {H_{1} = {\sum\limits_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}\left( {{\zeta_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}^{A}i\; \gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}^{z}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}^{t}} + {\zeta_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R} - \hat{z}}^{A}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R} - \hat{z}}^{z}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R} - \hat{z}}^{t}} + {\zeta_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}^{B}i\; \gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}^{x}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}^{y}} + {\zeta_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R} - \hat{z}}^{B}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R} - \hat{z}}^{x}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R} - \hat{z}}^{y}}} \right)}} & (146) \end{matrix}$

H₂ comprises two-island phase slips:

$\begin{matrix} {H_{2} = {{- {\sum\limits_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}{\zeta_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{AB}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{z}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{t}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{x}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{y}}}} - {\sum\limits_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}{\zeta_{Z}^{AB}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}^{x}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}^{y}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R} - \hat{z}}^{z}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R} - \hat{z}}^{t}}} - {\sum\limits_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}{\zeta_{X}^{AA}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{z}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{t}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} - \hat{x}}^{z}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}^{t}}} - {\sum\limits_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}{\zeta_{X}^{BB}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{x}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{y}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} - \hat{x}}^{x}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}^{y}}}}} & (147) \end{matrix}$

These phase slip amplitudes are given in terms of the Josephson couplings and charging energies:

$\begin{matrix} {\mspace{79mu} {{\zeta_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}^{A} = {{- {\cos \left( {\pi \; n_{{offA},\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}} \right)}}8\; E_{C_{11}}\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\left( \frac{E_{J_{1}}}{2\; E_{C_{11}}} \right)^{3/4}^{- \sqrt{8{{(E_{J_{1}})}/E_{C_{11}}}}}}}{\zeta_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R} - \hat{z}}^{A} = {{- {\cos \left( {\pi \; n_{{offA},{\overset{\rightarrow}{R} - \hat{z}}}} \right)}}8\; E_{C_{33}}\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\left( \frac{E_{J_{1}} + E_{J_{Z}}}{2\; E_{C_{11}}} \right)^{3/4}^{- \sqrt{8{{({E_{J_{1}} + E_{J_{Z}}})}/E_{C_{33}}}}}}}{\zeta_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}^{B} = {{- {\cos \left( {\pi \; n_{{offB},\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}} \right)}}8\; E_{C_{22}}\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\left( \frac{E_{J_{1}} + E_{J_{Z}}}{2\; E_{C_{22}}} \right)^{3/4}^{- \sqrt{8{{({E_{J_{1}} + E_{J_{Z}}})}/E_{C_{22}}}}}}}\mspace{79mu} {\zeta_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R} - \hat{z}}^{B} = {{- {\cos \left( {\pi \; n_{{offB},{\overset{\rightarrow}{R} - \hat{z}}}} \right)}}8\; E_{C_{44}}\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\left( \frac{E_{J_{1}}}{2\; E_{C_{44}}} \right)^{3/4}^{- \sqrt{8{{(E_{J_{1}})}/E_{C_{44}}}}}}}}} & (148) \\ {{\zeta_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{AB} = {{- {\cos \left( {\pi \left( {n_{{offA},\overset{\rightarrow}{r}} + n_{{offB},\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}} \right)} \right)}}8E_{C_{AB}}\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\left( \frac{E_{J_{Z}}}{2\; E_{C_{AB}}} \right)^{3/4}^{- \sqrt{8{{(E_{J_{Z}})}/E_{C_{AB}}}}}}}{\zeta_{Z}^{AB} = {{- {\cos \left( {\pi \left( {n_{{offB},\overset{\rightarrow}{r}} + n_{{offA},{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} - \hat{z}}}} \right)} \right)}}8E_{C_{BA}}\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\left( \frac{2E_{J_{1}}}{2\; E_{C_{BA}}} \right)^{3/4}^{- \sqrt{8{{(E_{J_{1}})}/E_{C_{BA}}}}}}}} & (149) \\ {\mspace{79mu} {where}} & \; \\ {\mspace{79mu} {{E_{C_{AB}} = {\frac{^{2}}{2}\frac{1}{{2\; C_{g}} + C_{Z}}}}\mspace{79mu} {E_{C_{BA}} = {\frac{^{2}}{2}\frac{1}{{2\; C_{g}} + {2C_{J}}}}}}} & (150) \end{matrix}$

The phase slip amplitudes ζ_(X) ^(AA), ζ_(X) ^(BB) are approximately given by products of the single island phase slips,

ζ_(X) ^(AA)≈ζ_({right arrow over (R)}) ^(A)ζ_({right arrow over (R)}−{circumflex over (z)}) ^(A),

ζ_(X) ^(BB)≈ζ_({right arrow over (R)}) ^(B)ζ_({right arrow over (R)}−{circumflex over (z)}) ^(B),  (151)

because the horizontal Josephson couplings are negligible.

All other two-island phase slips, and collective phase slips of more than two islands, can be ignored, as their amplitudes are exponentially suppressed relative to the terms considered here. Finally, H_(tun) includes the Majorana tunneling terms t_(A) and t_(B):

$\begin{matrix} {H_{tun} = {\sum\limits_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}\left\lbrack {{2{{Im}\left( {\overset{\sim}{t}}_{A} \right)}\gamma_{t,\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}\gamma_{t,{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}}} + {2{{Im}\left( {\overset{\sim}{t}}_{B} \right)}\gamma_{y,\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}\gamma_{x,{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}}}} \right\rbrack}} & (152) \end{matrix}$

If one sets n_(off,A,{right arrow over (r)})=n_(off,B,{right arrow over (r)})=½, then the single island phase slips vanish. The effective Hamiltonian becomes

$\begin{matrix} {H_{{2D};{eff}} = {{- {\sum\limits_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}{\zeta_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{AB}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{z}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{t}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{x}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{y}}}} - {\sum\limits_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}{\zeta_{Z}^{AB}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}^{x}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}^{y}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R} - \hat{z}}^{z}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R} - \hat{z}}^{t}}} - {\frac{4{{Im}\left( {\overset{\sim}{t}}_{A} \right)}{{Im}\left( {\overset{\sim}{t}}_{B} \right)}}{\zeta_{AB}}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{y}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{t}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}^{x}\gamma_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} + \hat{x}}^{t}}}} & (153) \end{matrix}$

If one further considers the regime where

ζ_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(AB)>>ζ_(Z) ^(AB),2Im({tilde over (t)} _(A)),2Im({tilde over (t)} _(B)),  (154)

one sees that the system can be described by an effective spin model:

$\begin{matrix} {{H_{{2D};{eff}} = {{\sum\limits_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}{J_{z}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R}}^{z}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{R} - \hat{z}}^{z}}} + {J_{yx}{\sum\limits_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}{S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{y}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r} - \hat{x}}^{x}}}}}},} & (155) \\ {with} & \; \\ {{J_{z} = \zeta_{Z}^{AB}},{J_{yx} = \frac{4{{Im}\left( {\overset{\sim}{t}}_{A} \right)}{{Im}\left( {\overset{\sim}{t}}_{B} \right)}}{\zeta_{AB}}}} & (156) \end{matrix}$

Upon rotating every other spin around the z axis by π/2, the above Hamiltonian can be put into the more familiar Kitaev form:

$\begin{matrix} {{H_{{2D};{eff}} = {{\sum\limits_{{\langle{ij}\rangle} = {z\text{-}{link}}}{J_{z}S_{i}^{z}S_{j}^{z}}} + {\sum\limits_{{\langle{ij}\rangle} = {x\text{-}{link}}}{J_{yx}S_{i}^{x}S_{j}^{x}}} - {\sum\limits_{{\langle{ij}\rangle} = {y\text{-}{link}}}{J_{yx}S_{i}^{y}S_{j}^{y}}}}},} & (157) \end{matrix}$

Realizing the Ising Topological Order

As has been shown, the physical architectures described above can give rise to an effective realization of the 2D Kitaev honeycomb spin model:

$\begin{matrix} {H_{K} = {{J_{x}{\sum\limits_{x\text{-}{links}}{S_{i}^{x}S_{j}^{x}}}} + {J_{y}{\sum\limits_{y\text{-}{links}}{S_{i}^{y}S_{j}^{y}}}} + {\sum\limits_{z\text{-}{links}}{S_{i}^{z}{S_{j}^{z}.}}}}} & (158) \end{matrix}$

It is well-known that this model is proximate to a non-Abelian topological state with Ising topological order. There are a number of known ways to access the non-Abelian state. One way to access the non-Abelian state is to apply a small effective Zeeman field:

$\begin{matrix} {{\delta \; H} = {{\sum\limits_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}{h_{x}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{x}}} + {h_{y}S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{y}} + {h_{z}{S_{\overset{\rightarrow}{r}}^{z}.}}}} & (159) \end{matrix}$

As explained in the single spin subsection, the h_(z) term above can be generated by tuning the gate voltage on each of the superconducting islands. The h_(x) and h_(y) terms are more difficult, but possible, to generate as well. They require connecting the Majorana zero modes with additional semiconductor wires, as shown in FIG. 11 to allow for electron tunneling as shown.

A second way of realizing the Ising topological order is to consider effectively the same model, but on a different lattice (see FIGS. 5 and 6) as proposed by Yao and Kivelson. As a spin model, the Kitaev Hamiltonian, Eq. (158) is time-reversal invariant. On the lattice structure proposed by Yao-Kivelson the ground state spontaneously breaks time reversal symmetry, yielding a ground state with Ising (or its time-reversed partner, Ising) topological order. In the completely isotropic limit where all couplings are equal to J, the energy gap of the Ising state is also equal to J. Interestingly, disorder in the spin couplings can actually be beneficial and can enlarge the region of stability of the Ising phase.

By adding a small effective time-reversal symmetry breaking perturbation to the spin model, one can tune whether the topological order is Ising or Ising, and avoid having domains of either, as would be realistically expected in the case where the effective time-reversal symmetry is broken spontaneously. A Zeeman term Σ_({right arrow over (r)})h_(z)S_({right arrow over (r)}) ^(z) by itself is insufficient. One can consider either a Zeeman term that includes both h_(z) and h_(y). Or, in order to avoid requiring h_(y) or h_(x) terms, which are more difficult to generate, one can make use of the smaller perturbations S_({right arrow over (R)}) ^(y)S_({right arrow over (R)}+x) ^(x), S_(r) ^(x)S_({right arrow over (r)}+{circumflex over (x)}) ^(y), that are naturally generated in the first charging energy based implementation presented above.

Genons Ising×Ising Topological Order

FIG. 31 is a block diagram 3100 showing that two essentially decoupled copies of the capacitance-based model can be created by using short overpasses to couple next nearest neighbor chains.

Given a microscopic architecture to realize a quantum state with Ising topological order, one can then consider designing two independent copies of such a state (referred to as the Ising×Ising state) by utilizing present-day nanofabrication technology to create short overpasses among different superconducting wires, as shown in FIG. 34.

Creating Genons

A genon in an Ising×Ising state can then be realized by modifying the overpass connections to create a segment along which the connections among the horizontal chains is twisted, as shown in FIGS. 32-33. These segments effectively create branch lines that connect one layer to the other, and vice versa. The end-points of the segments realize exotic non-Abelian twist defects, which have been referred to as genons. The topological degeneracy of the system in the presence of the genons mimics that of a single copy Ising system on a surface of non-trivial topology.

More specifically, FIGS. 32 and 33 are schematic block diagrams 3200, 3300 of architectures for creating genons in the effective spin model. The location of the genons corresponds to the end point of the branch lines, and are marked green circles (3210, 3212 in FIGS. 32 and 3310, 3312 in FIG. 33, respectively). FIG. 32 shows the full lattice dislocation, whereas FIG. 33 shows the configuration where vertical bonds that skip two chains along the branch cut are removed. The fact that these vertical bonds can be removed follows the analysis of M. Barkeshli and X.-L. Qi, Phys Rev X 4, 041035 (2014), which showed in a different context that half of the branch cut is sufficient.

Technically, there are three topologically distinct types of genons, which are labeled here as

, X_(ψ), and X_(σ). See M. Barkeshli, P. Bonderson, M. Cheng, and Z. Wang (2014), arXiv:1410.4540.

Physically, they correspond to whether a

, ψ, σ particle, from either layer, is bound to the genon. The genons have the following fusion rules:

×

=(

,

)+(ψ,ψ)+(σ,σ)

×(

,ψ)=

×(ψ,

)=X _(ψ)

×(

,σ)=

×(σ,

)=X _(σ)  (160)

It follows from the above that

, X_(ψ) have quantum dimension 2, while X_(σ) has quantum dimension 2√{square root over (2)}.

Effective Braiding of Genons and the Topological π/8 Phase Gate

The braiding of genons can be used to realize a topologically protected π/8 phase gate. In the present system, the braiding of genons is complicated by the fact that it is difficult to continuously modify the physical location of the genons to execute a braid loop in real space. Fortunately, this is not necessary, as the braiding of the genons can be implemented through a measurement-based approach. To do this, it is required that it be possible to measure the joint fusion channel of any pair of genons and project it into either the (

,

) channel or the (ψ, ψ) channel.

Measurement-Based Braiding of Genons

Importantly, the braiding of the genons can be achieved without moving them continuously around each other in space, but rather through tuning the effective interactions between them. Specifically, what is required to braid two genons is the ability to project the fusion channel of pairs of genons onto an Abelian charge sector.

In order to implement the π/8 phase gate, one can start with two pairs of genons, labelled 1, . . . , 4, and have the ability to braid genons 2 and 3. In order to do this, an ancillary pair of genons, labelled 5 and 6, is used. The braiding process is then established by projecting the genons 5 and 6 onto the fusion channel b₅₆, then the genons 5 and 3 onto the fusion channel b₃₅, the genons 5 and 2 onto the fusion channel b₂₅, and finally again the genons 5 and 6 onto the fusion channel b₅₆′.

FIGS. 8(A)-(D) show schematics for measurement based braiding of genons. In order to effectively braid genons 2 and 3, the following protocol can be performed. As shown at 810 of FIG. 8(A), the fusion channel of genons 5 and 6 is projected onto the anyon b₅₆. At 812, of FIG. 8(B), the fusion channel of genons 5 and 3 is projected onto b₅₃. At 814, of FIG. 8(C), the fusion channel of genons 5 and 2 is projected onto b₅₂. At 816, of FIG. 8(D), the fusion channel of genons 5 and 6 is projected onto b₅₆′.

Here it is assumed that b₅₆=b₅₆′. If the genons 5 and 6 are created out of the vacuum, then it will in fact be natural to have b₅₆=b₅₆′=(

,

). In this situation, one can derive the resulting braid matrix for the genons, following the results of P. Bonderson, Phys. Rev. B 87, 035113 (2013). When b₂₅=b₃₅, the braid matrix for genons 2 and 3 is given by

$\begin{matrix} {{R_{23} = {^{\varphi}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & {- 1} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & ^{{\pi}/8} \end{pmatrix}}},} & (161) \end{matrix}$

where e^(iφ) is an undetermined, non-topological phase. In other words, the state obtains a phase of ±1 or e^(iπ/8), depending on whether the fusion channel of genons 2 and 3 is (

,

), (ψ, ψ), or (σ, σ). If instead b₂₅≠b₃₅, then

$\begin{matrix} {R_{23} = {^{\varphi}\begin{pmatrix} {- 1} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & ^{{\pi}/8} \end{pmatrix}}} & (162) \end{matrix}$

Physical Implementation of Projection of Pairs of Genons onto (, ) or (ψ, ψ) Fusion Channels

When two genons are separated by a distance L, the effective Hamiltonian in the degenerate subspace spanned by the genons obtains non-local Wilson loop operators:

H _(genon) =t _((ψ,ψ)) W _((ψ,ψ))(C)+t _((σ,σ)) W _((σ,σ))(C)+H.c.  (163)

W_((ψ,ψ))(C) describes the exchange of a (ψ, ψ) particle between the two genons, which equivalently corresponds to a (

, ψ) or (ψ,

) particle encircling the pair of genons. Similarly, W_((σ,σ))(C) describes the exchange of a (σ, σ) particle between the two genons, which equivalently corresponds to a (

, σ) or (σ,

) particle encircling the pair of genons. t_(ψ)∝e^(−LΔ) ^(ψ) ^(/v) ^(ψ) and t_(ψ)∝e^(−LΔ) ^(σ) ^(/v) ^(σ) are the tunneling amplitudes, with Δ_(ψ) and Δ_(σ) being the energy gaps for the ψ and σ particles, and v_(ψ), v_(σ) some appropriate velocity scales.

Next, suppose that the pair of genons shown in FIG. 34 fuse to the quasiparticle (b, b). The outcome of the process where a (1, a) quasiparticle encircles a topological charge (b, b) is determined by the topological S matrix of the Ising phase, and is given by S_(ab)/

, where

$\begin{matrix} {{S = \begin{pmatrix} {1/2} & {1/\sqrt{2}} & {1/2} \\ {1/\sqrt{2}} & 0 & {{- 1}/\sqrt{2}} \\ {1/2} & {{- 1}/\sqrt{2}} & {1/2} \end{pmatrix}},} & (164) \end{matrix}$

and where the entries are ordered

, σ, ψ. In other words, the eigenvalues of W_((a,a))(C) are given by S_(ab)/

, where (b, b) is the fusion channel of the two genons connected by the path C.

The ground state of H_(genon), which depends on t_(σ), t_(ψ) therefore corresponds to a definite fusion channel for the pair of genons involved. One can distinguish the following possibilities:

-   -   1. |t_(σ)|>|t_(ψ)| and t_(σ)>0. The ground state subspace of         H_(genon) corresponds to the case where the two genons have         fused to the (ψ, ψ) channel.     -   2. |t_(σ)|>|t_(ψ)| and t_(σ)<0. The ground state subspace of         H_(genon) corresponds to the case where the two genons have         fused to the (         ,         ) channel.     -   3. |t_(σ)|<|t_(ψ)|, t_(ψ)<0, t_(σ)>0. The ground state subspace         of H_(genon) corresponds to the case where the two genons have         fused to the (ψ, ψ) channel.     -   4. |t_(σ)|<|t_(ψ)|, t_(ψ)<0, t_(σ)<0. The ground state subspace         of H_(genon) corresponds to the case where the two genons have         fused to the (         ,         ) channel.     -   5. |t_(σ)|<|t_(ψ)|, t_(ψ)>0. The ground state subspace of         H_(genon) corresponds to the case where the two genons have         fused to the (σ, σ) fusion channel.         One sees that there is only one possibility that is desirably         prevented, which is the last one, where |t_(σ)|<|t_(ψ)|,         t_(ψ)>0. To do this, one can flip the sign of t_(ψ) by flipping         the sign of the coupling along a single link of the shortest         path that connects the genons. Moreover, note that one can also         pick the precise path C along which the quasiparticles tunnel by         depressing the gap along that path, which can be done by         decreasing the couplings along that path.

Ising×Ising Topological Order and Gapped Boundaries

In the above, an example method for creating genons in the Ising×Ising topological state was presented. The braiding of the genons, which can be performed in a measurement-based fashion, can be used for the topologically protected π/8 gate. Here, it is noted that the same topologically robust transformations can also be achieved with the Ising×Ising topological state in the presence of multiple disconnected gapped boundaries, where Ising refers to the time-reversed conjugate of the Ising state.

In particular, FIGS. 34(A)-(D) shows an Ising×Ising system in the presence of two holes (three gapped boundaries). This is effectively equivalent to the Ising×Ising system with 6 genons. The topologically robust operation described in FIG. 8 can be adapted to this case, by projecting the topological charge through the loops shown to be equal to b₁, . . . , b₄. The solid line indicates that it is in the “top” layer, while the dashed line indicates that it is in the “bottom” layer.

The main observation is that the Ising×Ising state in the presence of n disconnected gapped boundaries can be viewed as effectively a flattened version of a single Ising state on a genus g=n−1 surface. This is similar to the fact that an Ising×Ising state, in the presence of n pairs of genons, can also be effectively mapped onto a single Ising state on a genus g=n−1 surface. The measurement-based braiding protocol for the genons of the Ising×Ising state can be readily adapted to the case of the Ising×Ising with gapped boundaries. This adapted protocol is discussed in more detail below.

Consider the Ising×Ising state in the presence of two disconnected gapped boundaries, i.e. on an annulus. This is equivalent to a single Ising state on a torus, similar to the case of the Ising×Ising state with four genons. In order to carry out an effective Dehn twist in this effective torus, an ancillary gapped boundary can be used, as shown in FIG. 34 This system is now equivalent to a genus 2 surface. In order to effectively carry out the Dehn twist, a series of projections is performed along various loops in the system. The loops shown in FIGS. 34(A)-(D) are considered, and the topological charge through those loops is sequentially projected to be b₁, . . . , b₄. This is precisely analogous to the genon braiding case described in FIG. 8, where the fusion channel of genons was projected onto b₅₆, b₃₅, b₂₅, and b₅₆′. Thus if one takes b₁=b₄ and b₁, . . . , b₄ to be all Abelian topological charges, the equivalence between the Ising×Ising system with genons and the Ising×Ising with gapped boundaries implies that the desired operation has effectively been carried out. Further details concerning this projection-based approach are described in M. Barkeshli, M. Freedman, arXiv:1602.01093.

As in the case of the genons in the Ising×Ising state described in the previous sections, these projections can effectively be implemented by reducing the gap for quasiparticle tunneling along the various loops as required.

DISCUSSION

In this disclosure, it was shown that it is indeed possible to achieve universal topological quantum computation from a coupled network of Majorana nanowires. Among the embodiments disclosed herein are embodiments of a physical architecture, including, for example, embodiments in two distinct limits, with two distinct physical mechanisms, that can realize an effective Kitaev honeycomb spin model. The particular physical implementations of the disclosed architecture makes it possible to create short overpasses in order to create the Ising×Ising topological state, and to make a genon—a lattice defect in the effective spin model, whose braiding statistics allows for universal TQC.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Having illustrated and described the principles of the disclosed technology, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art that the disclosed embodiments can be modified in arrangement and detail without departing from such principles.

Further details concerning Majorana zero modes and semiconductor/superconductor nanowire devices, any one or more of which can be used in fabricating, creating, and/or using embodiments of the disclosed technology are discussed in: J. D. Sau, R. M. Lutchyn, S. Tewari, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 040502 (2010); R. M. Lutchyn, J. D. Sau, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 077001 (2010); J. Alicea, Reports on Progress in Physics 75, 076501 (2012); C. Beenakker, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 4, 113 (2013); V. Mourik. K. Zuo. S. Frolov, S. Plissard, E. Bakkers, and L. Kouwenhoven, Science 336, 1003 (2012); L. P. Rokhinson, X. Liu, and J. K. Furdyna, Nat. Phys. 8, 795, (2012), ISSN 1745-2473, arXiv:1204.4212; M. T. Deng, C. L. Yu, G. Y. Huang. M. Larsson, P. Caroff, and H. Q. Xu, Nano Letter 12, 6414 (2012), arXiv:1204.4130; H. O. H. Churchill, V. Fatemi, K. Grove-Rasmussen, M. T. Deng. P. Caroff. H. Q. Xu, and C. M. Marcu, Phys. Rev. B 87, 241401 (2013); S. Nadj-Perge, I. K. Drozdov, J. Li, H. Chen, S. Jeon, J. Seo, A. H. Macdonald, B. A. Bernevig, and A. Yazdani, Science 346, 602 (2014), 1410.0682; W. Chang, S. M. Albrecht, T. S. Jespersen, F. Kuemmeth, P. Krogstrup, J. Nygrd, and C. M. Marcus, Nat Nano 10, 232 (2015).

In view of the many possible embodiments to which the principles of the disclosed invention may be applied, it should be recognized that the illustrated embodiments are only preferred examples of the invention and should not be taken as limiting the scope of the invention. 

What is claimed is:
 1. A universal topological quantum computing device comprising: a plurality of semiconductor-superconductor heterostructures configured to have a twist defect in an Ising×Ising topological state.
 2. The universal topological quantum computing device of claim 1, wherein at least two of the semiconductor-superconductor heterostructures form a two-state quantum system having an effective spin-½ degree of freedom.
 3. The universal topological quantum computing device of claim 2, wherein the two-state quantum system comprises: a first superconducting island on which a first semiconducting nanowire is located; and a second superconducting island on which a second semiconducting nanowire is located, the first superconducting island being substantially perpendicular to the second superconducting island and being coupled to one another via a Josephson junction.
 4. The universal topological quantum computing device of claim 2, wherein at least one of the semiconductor-superconductor heterostructures comprises: two semiconductor nanowire structures having four Majorana zero modes and a charging energy constraint.
 5. The universal topological quantum computing device of claim 2, wherein at least one of the semiconductor-superconductor heterostructures comprises: two semiconductor nanowire structures using double-island quantum phase slips and having four Majorana zero modes.
 6. The universal topological quantum computing device of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor-superconductor heterostructures are arranged to form a two-dimensional Kitaev honeycomb spin model.
 7. The universal topological quantum computing device of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor-superconductor heterostructures are arranged into pairs, each pair comprising a first and a second semiconductor-superconductor heterostructure
 8. The universal topological quantum computing device of claim 7, wherein the pairs of semiconductor-superconductor heterostructures are arranged into a two-dimensional lattice comprising: a set of the pairs connected via a first nanowire to nearest neighboring pairs along a first dimension; a first subset of the set connected via one or more second nanowires to distant pairs along a second dimension, the one or more second nanowires forming overpasses that bypass one or more nearest neighboring pairs along the second dimension; and a second subset of the set connected via one or more third nanowires to nearest neighboring pairs along the second dimension.
 9. The universal topological quantum computing device of claim 8, wherein the one or more third nanowires create the twist defect.
 10. A π/8 phase gate comprising the universal topological quantum computing device of claim
 1. 11. A universal topological quantum computer comprising: one or more semiconductor-superconductor heterostructures configured to have holes with gapped boundaries in an Ising×Ising topological state, where Ising is the time-reversed conjugate of the Ising state.
 12. A quantum computing device, comprising: a first superconducting island on which a first semiconducting nanowire is located; and a second superconducting island on which a second semiconducting nanowire is located, the first superconducting island being substantially perpendicular to the second superconducting island and being coupled to one another via a Josephson junction and thereby forming a pair of superconducting-semiconducting heterostructures.
 13. A universal topological quantum computing device comprising multiple two-spin unit cells, each two-spin unit cell comprising two pairs of the superconducting-semiconducting heterostructures of claim
 12. 14. The universal topological quantum computing device of claim 13, wherein the two-spin unit cells are arranged into a two-dimensional lattice comprising: a set of the pairs connected via a first nanowire to nearest neighboring pairs along a first dimension; a first subset of the set connected via one or more second nanowires to distant pairs along a second dimension, the one or more second nanowires forming overpasses that bypass one or more nearest neighboring pairs along the second dimension; and a second subset of the set connected via one or more third nanowires to nearest neighboring pairs along the second dimension.
 15. The universal topological quantum computing device of claim 14, wherein the one or more third nanowires create the twist defect.
 16. A π/8 phase gate comprising the universal topological quantum computing device of claim
 15. 17. A method, comprising: implementing a π/8 phase gate for a quantum computing device by braiding genons in an Ising×Ising state or using gapped boundaries in an Ising×Ising topological state, where Ising is the time-reversed conjugate of the Ising state.
 18. The method of claim 17, wherein the π/8 phase gate for the quantum computing device is implemented by braiding genons and wherein the braiding comprises projecting fusion channels of pairs of the genons onto an Abelian charge sector.
 19. The method of claim 17, wherein the π/8 phase gate comprises six genons.
 20. The method of claim 17, wherein the π/8 phase gate for the quantum computing device is implemented by using gapped boundaries to achieve the Ising×Ising state, and wherein the method further comprises performing topologically robust operations by a sequence of topological charge projections utilizing the gapped boundaries. 